16:13; 17:1, 26-27. Difference of opinion is possible in some cases, and this list differs slightly from Harnack's selection,' but it seems clear that in these passages there was a literary connection between the two gospels; that is, that both made use of the same written material.

2. Of the material less closely paralleled in Matthew (a) we may consider that a source common to the two gospels is indicated also in the following passages: Luke 10:4-11, 16; 11:2-4, 14-18, 21-22, 33, 39b52; 12:3-9, 11-12, 33, 49, 51-53, 58-59; 13:18-19, 28-29, 30; 14: 26-27, 34-35(?); 16:16, 17, 18; 17:2, 3-4, 6b, 23-24, 31, 33, 34-35, 37; 19:12-27. Combination or conflation with material from Mark by Matthew in his use of them appears in the case of Luke 10:4-11; 11:1423; 12:11-12; 13:18-19; 17:2, 31. The agreement of Matthew with Luke 17:31 against Mark is indeed confined to a preposition and its case, but the closeness of the correspondence of all three and the fact that Matthew in the same discourse uses much material closely preceding and following Luke 17:31 lead to the conclusion that the source of this also was in Matthew's possession. While Mark in 9:42 has as close a parallel to Luke 17:2 as Matthew in 18:6, the fact that Matthew, who apparently used Mark as a source for this saying, has with it that found in Luke 17:1 shows that Matthew had the former in the source of Luke's section as well as in Mark. While the differences from Luke 19:12-27 in Matt. 25:14-30 seem to indicate that he was using another source than that of Luke, the correspondences, especially in the latter part, would seem to be best accounted for by supposing that Matthew had for this parable the source used by Luke, and thus he probably combined material from the two sources. Evidence that Matthew was not unused to making combinations of material from different sources may be found in Matt. 13:31-33; 12:25-30; 10:11-15; 23:1-36, when each is compared with its parallels.

Moreover, there are other passages in Luke's Perean section which (b) while they have partial parallels in Matthew differ so from those parallels that it seems probable the two gospels did not take them from a common source. Such are 10:25-29; 13:23-24, 27; 14:15-24; 15:3-7. The probable use of an additional source by Matthew in his parallel to Luke 19:12-27 has just been noticed. Luke 10:25-29 differs from the other passages grouped here in that its partial parallel in Matthew is derived from Mark. If there is any evidence that Matthew had this passage before him, it is to be found in certain verbal agreements with

1 The Sayings of Jesus, pp. 1-40, which includes 10:7b; 11:26; 19:26; and omits 17:26-27.

it in 22:35-40 against Mark 12:28-34. These are in the use of the words "lawyer," "trying," "teacher," "in the law," the conjunction Sé, and in the Old Testament quotation the omission of "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one," and the use of the preposition ev with the dative in the last two phrases. But Matthew's quotation differs from both Luke's and Mark's in having only three prepositional phrases, and in using èv with the first of them, showing that it was not Luke's form but probably as elsewhere1 the Hebrew Old Testament that led to the changes.

That Matthew should omit the first part given in his primary source under the influence of a subsidiary source would seem hardly probable. Matthew may have preferred the more specific term "lawyer" to "scribe," as the question here was one of the law. "Trying" is interpretation on the part of Matthew, justified by the commendatory answer of the scribe in Mark 12:32, which he omitted. Matthew had recently, in 22:18, taken the same verb from Mark, and at other times the same expression (16:1 and 19:3). "Teacher," a common word for address to Jesus, Matthew might have taken from Mark, vs. 32. Matthew's "in the law" seems a natural further defining of Mark's "commandment," and the use of the conjunction is characteristic of Matthew's changing of the style of Mark. The partial agreement in order of the common words seems almost inevitable and to have little weight for a common source. Thus while it is not impossible that Matthew knew the source of Luke 10:25-29, the evidence for it is hardly decisive.

The lack of close agreement with Luke 13:23-24 and 27 in Matt. 7:13-14 and 23, together with the fact that Matthew is pretty clearly using material from another source in the immediate context, seems to indicate that Matthew was not there using the source of these passages in Luke. The wide differences both in content and in form between Luke 14:15-24 and Matt. 22:1-10 seem to indicate pretty clearly that in general they are following different sources. Moreover, the agreements in details are not sufficiently close to lead us to the conclusion that as with Luke 19:12-27 the source of Luke's parable influenced Matthew's presentation. Luke 15:3-7 is partly paralleled in Matt. 18:12-13, but vss. 3, 6, and the principal part of 5 have no parallel in Matthew, and there are notable differences in the rest. This, together with the fact that the differences in form are not all to be accounted for either by stylistic changes or by the adapting of the parable to different uses, seems to indicate that the two forms were not derived from the same document.

1 Burton, A Short Introduction to the Gospels, p. 6.

As we approach the third group of passages, portions which, if known to Matthew, it seems he might easily have omitted, we may notice that there appear to be certain more or less well-defined principles according to which Matthew has omitted material that presumably lay before him in a source that he was using, the Gospel of Mark. Similar considerations, it would seem, would be likely to result in his omission of material from other documentary sources. Such principles, suggested by Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae1 may be stated as follows: (1) “To omit or condense Mark's subsidiary and pleonastic details" (Hawkins, pp. 160, 125-31). (2) To omit or alter "passages [in Mark] seeming (a) to limit the power of Jesus Christ, or (b) to be otherwise derogatory to, or unworthy of, him" (Hawkins, pp. 117 ff.). (3) To omit or alter "passages [in Mark] seeming to disparage the attainments or character of the apostles" (Hawkins, pp. 121 f., cf. p. 116). (4) To omit or alter "other passages [in Mark] which might cause offense or difficulty" (Hawkins, pp. 122 ff.). (5) To adapt the whole work "for the purposes of catechetical or other teaching" (Hawkins, pp. 218, 158 ff., 163-67). In this last other sources than Mark are in view.

With these principles in mind we proceed to a notice of the portions in Luke's Perean section which, if known to Matthew, he might easily have omitted. Luke 9:51-56 might well have been omitted by Matthew as not furthering his purpose, especially as (1) he shows no interest in the Samaritans, not mentioning them or their city except in a saying (10:5) forbidding the disciples to enter into a city of theirs; and (2) the culmination of this section is a rebuke of James and John the disciples (apostles) by Jesus for a saying of theirs (principle 3). Cf. especially Matt. 20:20, with Mark 10:35, where the request of James and John is transferred to their mother. Matthew might have omitted vs. 51, which is separable from the rest, because he had its substance in Mark 10:1 and 32, which he used in Matt. 19:1 and 20:17-19.

Luke 9:61-62 might have been omitted by Matthew as not, like the two preceding incidents and those among which he used them, well adapted to illustrate Jesus' personal authority, and also as perhaps likely to cause difficulty (principle 4).

As evidence that Matthew might easily have omitted Luke 10:17 if it were in his source may be cited his omission of Mark 6:12-13, which also is connected with the close of material that he embodied in his missionary discourse. The saying in 10:18 is bold and highly figurative, and Matthew might have omitted it as likely to cause difficulty, or at

1 2d ed., Oxford, 1909.

any rate, not likely to be especially helpful to his readers (principles 4 and 5). The same principles for a different reason might have led him to omit 10:19-20, for the phenomena there spoken of were probably not generally known at the time when Matthew was written.1

Though Matthew is not in general careful to avoid including two incidents similar to each other, his use of a partial parallel to Luke 10: 25-28 derived from Mark in 22:34-40 might have led him to omit it. We have already noticed the possible evidence that Matthew was there influenced by the language of this passage.

Luke 10:38-42 consists of a saying of Jesus and a narrative leading up to it, either of which is pointless without the other. That the saying early caused offense or difficulty in Christian circles seems evidenced by the change and omission found in quotations, early versions, and texts of it. The indication that Jesus preferred the hearing of his word to active ministry to his physical needs might seemingly have been thought somewhat dangerous to the Christian circle for which Matthew wrote. For notice Jas. 1:22: "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only," and Paul's urging of useful work on members of the Christian community:2 "If any will not work, neither shall he eat"; "Work with your hands," and especially the scene given by Matthew only, in 25:31-46, in which the eternal fate of those of "all the nations" is decided according to their ministry or lack of it to Christ in the person of his "brethren." That is, Matthew might have feared the danger of his readers' misinterpreting the saying, as it was actually misinterpreted, to mean that hearing Jesus' word was the one thing needful (principle 4). The omission of the saying would carry with it that of the whole section.

Luke 11:1 might easily have been omitted by Matthew as not especially significant and not fitting into his plan of grouping the material into long "discourses" (principle 5), even if he did not feel the hint of Jesus' following John's example undesirable (principle 2b).

Luke 11:5-8 might easily have been thought by Matthew to be not especially helpful. Neither of the characters in the parable is made attractive: it is the refusal of help by the friend that is the only speech quoted from him, and the act of the one asking is called åvaidía, “shamelessness," "impudence" (Thayer, s.v.). Such a parable might easily cause difficulty, as seeming not only to imply that Christians should bring impudent or shameless requests to God, but that God was in some way to be compared to a man who gives not from friendship but because

Cf. Sharman, The Teaching of Jesus about the Future, pp. 341 f.

2 II Thess. 3:10 ff. and I Thess. 4:11.

of the importunity of the one who asks. Many people today find difficulty rather than help in the parable for similar reasons. It may very well be, therefore, that Matthew had this parable in his source, and omitted it for some such reason. It might easily be felt to be opposed to the spirit of the insertion probably made by Matthew in 6:7-8: "When ye pray use not vain repetitions as the heathen do; for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking; be not therefore like them; for your Father knows what things ye need before ye ask him" (principle 4).

Luke 11:27-28 as a repudiation by Jesus of personal honor to himself might have been somewhat distasteful to early Christians and so have been left out by Matthew from his gospel (principle 26).

Luke 11:36 Matthew might easily have omitted as obscure and pleonastic, seeming to add nothing to the ideas already presented in vss. 33-35 (principle 1).

The introduction to the discourse against Pharisaism in Luke 11: 37-394 would naturally fall out in Matthew's use of the material, and as showing apparent courtesy to Jesus from a Pharisee would be little to his purpose. It seems to give a curious occasion for such words from Jesus as follow it, and would fit still less well the more extended denunciation given in Matt., chap 23.

Luke 11:53-54 reminds us of Mark 12:13 and Matthew's parallel, 22:15. Matthew might have omitted it as included in the other passage which he had shortly before used (principle 1).

Matthew had taken from Mark (8:15) a parallel to the saying in Luke 12:1, in Matt. 16:6. Moreover, he had from Mark the notice of great crowds coming to Jesus and thronging him (Matt. 4:25; 12:15; 13:2; and 19:2), and so would not need any of this verse (principle 1).

Luke 12:35-38 has a number of points of similarity with the parable of the Ten Virgins which Matthew has placed in connection with the two parables that follow in Luke in Matt. 25:1-13. Matthew might have omitted this passage because he had in the other from another source what he considered a better version of the same parable,1 or else a better substitute.

Luke 12:41-42a would not have fitted here in Matthew's long discourse, and so might have been omitted even if they were in his source. The omission of Mark 5:30 f. after Matt. 9:21 may also be considered in point (principle 1).

Matthew seems to have inserted the last clause of 24:51 as a sub1 So Sharman, op. cit., pp. 187–90, 195 f.