those passages in the Gospel of Matthew that show the strongest ecclesiastical interest may well be considered to have been inserted by another hand than that of the author of the gospel; so that objection to the parables by him on the ground of such an interpretation is not seen to have been probable. Both parables fit very well with the teaching reported by Matthew in 9:10-13, where a similar situation is presented to that reported in Luke 15:1-2 which introduces them. It would seem that Matthew might very well have used them after this paragraph, especially as they would have furnished further examples of authoritative teaching by Jesus, which Matthew here and elsewhere seems to have been especially concerned to present. Moreover the parable of the Prodigal Son might well, it seems, have been used by Matthew between 5:43-47 and 48, as it is a strong enforcement of the truth he there presented. It seems very hard to discover a motive for its entire omission by Matthew if he had it in his source.

Luke 16:15 might seemingly have well been used by Matthew in the discourse against the Pharisees in chap. 23, in which vs. 12, from a source used in Luke's Perean section, and vss. 27-28 are close to it in thought. The address of this verse to the Pharisees is recorded in Luke 16:14. If vs. 15 seemed obscure enough to cause difficulty to his readers, Matthew might have omitted it on that ground, but this seems hardly likely, and otherwise a probable reason for its omission if it were in his source does not appear.

The main part of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, i.e. Luke 16:19-26, from its similarities in thought and teaching with the judgment scene given in Matt. 25:31-46 and with the parable of the Unmerciful Servant as interpreted in Matt. 18:35, as well as with other characteristic expressions in Matthew,2 might well, it seems, have been used by him if he had had it in his source. A place for it might have been found in chap. 18, either at the end or after vs. 9. The parable to vs. 26 is complete in itself, and the use of it without the remaining verses, if they were not wanted, would, it seems, have caused no difficulty.

Why should Matthew have omitted Luke 17:11-19 if he had it? Prejudice against Samaritans could have been satisfied by the omission of the references to race without spoiling the narrative, as of a notable miracle which had an added lesson of the duty of thankfulness and the

1 See Sharman, op. cit., pp. 329 ff., 335-39, 356.

2 E.g., "There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth"; Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30.

MATTHEW'S USE OF PORTIONS IN LUKE'S PEREAN SECTION 13

power of faith. None of these things seems foreign to Matthew's thought.

To be sure, Matthew had from Mark the account of the cure by Jesus of a single leper (8:1-4) who also was told to show himself to the priest, but Matthew in other cases repeats the story of cures much more similar than those of the lepers. If Matthew was careful not to represent Jesus as opposing the Mosaic law, no such opposition is indicated here.

Incidents and ideas akin to those found in and suggested by this section are found in Matt. 8:10-13; 12:15-21; 12:41-45. And if a place is sought for this incident in Matthew, why should it not have followed 9:32-34, or if he wished to have only ten miracles there, have replaced it? That seems a repetition of material used elsewhere with no particular suitability to this place. Hawkins says of that miracle and the one preceding it that "the suggestion naturally occurs that Matthew inserted this anticipatory mention of them in order to make up the conventional number of ten miracles." Our story here has ten men healed, and could have made a climax to the series of ten miracles had Matthew had it to use.

Finally, it seems difficult to find a reason for Matthew's omitting Luke 18:9-14 if it stood in his source. It is closely akin in thought with the parable and other teachings peculiar to Matthew in 21:28-32, and its teaching is not unlike that of Matt. 9:11-13, taken from Mark 2:16-17. It might seemingly have found a place after this latter, or possibly in the discourse on humility and forgiveness, Matt., chap. 18, or that against the Pharisees, Matt. 23:1-36, in which indeed the last sentence of this section is found (vs. 12), though probably taken rather from the source of Luke 14:11, where its connection is somewhat better.

The facts then in regard to the material of Luke's Perean section as regards its relation to use by Matthew make it appear distinctly probable that this material at one time existed in at least two separate bodies, one of which was known to Matthew and largely used by him in the composition of his gospel, the other not known to him when he composed his gospel, and therefore not used by him in it. The facts thus far adduced may not amount to proof of such distinctness of sources behind Luke's Perean section. But the argument for this is also cumulative. And further evidence supporting it from the inner characteristics of the sections themselves is to be presented in the following chapter.

I

1 Cf. 9:27-31 with 20:30-34, and 9:32-34 with 12:22-24.

2 But cf. Matt. 5:38 ff.

CHAPTER II

INNER EVIDENCE FOR DISTINCTNESS OF SOURCES BEHIND LUKE'S PEREAN SECTION

The previous chapter, dealing with a matter going outside of the material as it stands in Luke, namely its relation to use in another gospel, has resulted in the suggestion that two distinct and separate sources lay behind the material now found in Luke's Perean section. The task of the present chapter is to present evidence from within the material itself that tends to confirm this probability.

The looseness of connection and lack of orderly arrangement that appears in many places throughout this section has long ago been noticed. We can hardly consider it probable that the arrangement of its material is governed in detail by the time or place of the incidents and teachings. For indications both of time and place are exceedingly scanty, only one place indeed being mentioned by name as the scene of an incident or saying, Jericho, 19:1, the phrase "a certain place,” “a certain village" being repeatedly used, and indications of time being equally scanty and indefinite. Moreover, Sharman has pointed out3 the difficulty of finding a relationship in thought between the portions Luke 11:33-36; 12:10; 12:11-12; 12:57-59; 13:18-21; 14:34-35; 16:16; 16:18; 17:7-10 and the material which precedes or follows each of these.

Now it may be noticed that in a considerable number of cases there appears to be a closer connection in thought between passages in this section now separated by intervening material than exists between these passages and their more immediate context. Thus 10:2-16 is closely connected with 10:21-22 by the thought of those who receive and those who fail to receive Jesus' message. Vs. 17 is indeed connected with 10:1, but the ideas presented in vss. 18-20 seem widely separated from those of the sections on each side of them. Again 10:21-24 and 38-42

I So Friedrich Bleek, Einleitung in das N.T., 1862. English ed., 1869, p. 279: "Want of due connection and arrangement is very apparent in that long section peculiar to Luke, chaps. 9:51-18:14."

2 Cf. Sharman, op. cit., pp. 3 f.; Michaelis, Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Bundes, ed. Marsh, 2d ed., 1802, III, 1, p. 39; Priestley, Harmony of the Evangelists, p. 95; Burton and Mathews, Life of Christ, p. 176.

3 Op. cit., p. 4.

are closely connected by the idea of the importance of receiving what Jesus has to reveal, the word "hear" (vss. 24 and 39) serving also as a verbal connection. Nothing like so close a connection appears between either portion and the intervening material. But close connection may be found between that material, 10:25-37, and another isolated section, 17:12-19, Jesus in the latter carrying out his teaching in the former by a notable act of mercy to the unfortunate, a verbal connection appearing in vss. 37 and 13 ("mercy"), and the one held up for emulation in each case being a Samaritan. The passages 12:4-12 and 22 ff. are closely connected as encouragements to confidence in God and devotion to his work. There is verbal connection in "be not anxious," vss. II, 22, etc. The intervening passage interrupts this course of thought, though it has a connection with 12:22 ff. The requirements of humility and renunciation found in 14:7-11 and 25-35 seem to connect these passages somewhat more closely than either is connected with the intervening material if we ignore the likely editorial first clause of vs. 12.

The thought of rejection of the chosen ones and bringing-in of the unfortunate in 14:16-24 is closely connected with that of chap. 15, God's special joy at the finding of the lost, especially as introduced by the murmuring of the Pharisees and scribes. Moreover, the parable of 14:16-24 appears better suited to attract "the publicans and sinners," 15:1, than what intervenes, which appears like a decided interrruption.

The tone of strenuous requirement for discipleship found in 14:2535 reappears decidedly in 16:13, but to a considerable extent the idea is found also in the entire section 16:1-13, the connection with either being considerably closer than of any of them with chap. 15. But 16: 14-15 seems more closely connected with chapter 15 than either is with the intervening section, especially if we may regard it as probable that the phrase "being lovers of money" is due to an editor. The thought of uncompromising requirements for the member of the new order is continued from 16:1–13 in vss. 16-17, the connections with vss. 14-15 seeming less close except perhaps for the (possibly editorial) reference to money connecting 14 with 1-13. Moreover, 16:14-15 seems an excellent introduction for 16:19-31, the contrast between human and divine estimates of worth being strong in each. Neither seems to be at all closely connected with what comes between. Luke 17:1-2 may be considered as connected with 16: 18 as a warning as to offense particularly

1 Of the two Greek words in this phrase piλápyupos appears in the New Testament only here and once in I Tim., and iráρxw is listed by Hawkins as especially characteristic of Luke.

in matters of divorce and marriage. In any case both portions seem to indicate requirements of the disciple, and to be more nearly allied to each other than either is with the intervening parable, which has no obvious connection with either. Finally, the promise of vindication of the faithful ones and punishment of adversaries at the coming of the Lord closely connects Luke 18:1-8 and 19:12-27, much more closely than either is connected with its more immediate context.

The mere fact that in such a large number of cases coherence would be improved by the putting-together of portions now separated tends to strengthen the argument for the existence of more than one document behind this section, though one might conceive it to be the result of a rearrangement or disarrangement of material from a single source. But the evidence for the first supposition is made more clear and greatly strengthened by noting that from the passages we have just been considering two coherent groups appear. Thus, rearranging the order of our list, we have noted the close connection of (1) 14:7-11 with 14: 25-35; of 14:25-35 with 16:1-13; of 16:1-13 with 16:16-17; of 16: 16-18 with 17:1-2; and of (2) 14:16-24 with 15:1-32; of 15:1-32 with 16:14-15; of 16:14-15 with 16:19-31. It will be noticed that the passages of list (2) in every case fit between those of list (1), alternating with them in the present arrangement in Luke. This looks very much as though material from two documents had been here put together by taking a portion alternately from each, preserving the order of the original documents.

Moreover, we may now extend the second of these lists by noting the close connection between 16:19-31 and 10:25-37, which leads to our first and only suggestion of a change in order in the process of combining documents. The former passage ends with a presentation of the thought that the instructions of the Old Testament Scriptures should be amply sufficient to prevent a life that leads to torment after death, while the latter, beginning with a question as to what to do to inherit eternal life, answers it by reference to the Old Testament Scriptures and the assertion that obedience to their instructions will bring life, and then illustrates the meaning of such obedience. The lawyer of 10:25 might readily have been found among the group of 15:2-3, some of whom are apparently mentioned again in 16:14. If then we place the passage 10:25-37 after 16:19-31, at the end of our list (2), we may add to it still another passage besides, 17:12-19, the close connection of which with 10:25-37 we have already noted. These facts point to the supposition that in the combining of material from two documents the order of one was not completely