as dealing with the law in the new period, and 7 and 8 perhaps by the thought of failure to profit by Jesus' presence. That connections of thought are found so generally through this material where its parts are separated by other material still further confirms the hypothesis that it belonged to a single document prior to the Gospel of Luke and prior to the insertion of some at least of the intervening material. (Cf. pp. 14 ff.)

The extent to which all the sections of this material are bound together by the characteristics we have noted may be partially indicated by observing the number of these characteristics that bind each section to others in the group. The figures may be placed as follows: § 1, 8; 82, 12; § 3, 10; § 4, 10; § 5, 10; § 6, 9; § 7, 10; § 8, 10; § 9, 11; § 10, 10; § 11, 12; § 12, 11; § 13, 8; § 14, 8; § 15, 10; § 16, 9; § 17, 9; § 18, 8; § 19, 9; § 20, 10; § 21, 11; § 22, 9; § 23, 8; § 24, 7; § 25, 4; § 26, 9. When it is considered that a number of these sections contain but a single verse (so § 25), this showing may well be considered remarkable, not only in the number of the connections found, but in their even distribution among the sections. The facts we have adduced seem sufficient confirmation for the antecedent probability that one document rather than two or more furnished that portion of the material of Luke's Perean section that appears also in Matthew and has been gathered in our first group.

CHAPTER IV

HOMOGENEITY OF A BODY OF MATERIAL NOT USED IN

MATTHEW

We have previously noticed the seeming suitability to the purposes of Matthew's Gospel of certain parts of the material in Luke's Perean section that he has not used and the strength that fact lends to the supposition that those parts were not in a document used by Matthew in the composition of his gospel. For the idea that a considerable part of this material may have come from a single document we found support in the fact that through a large part of it a line of thought can be traced having better logical sequence at each place where the portions are now separated than those portions have with their present context, and involving change of the present order only in the case of the first parable of the group. The force of this better coherence is not weakened by the fact that in tracing it two parables were used which have parallels in Matthew, for in both cases, conspicuously so in the more important one, the variations in the two gospels are so great as to make it seem probable that different sources lay back of them.3

For deciding the matter of distinctness of sources we added to these passages to form our second group the rest of those indicated by their relation to use in Matthew as probably not in his possession, together with one, 19:1-10, which Matthew might seemingly have omitted had he had it, though he might also have used it (p. 10). These passages, in the order in which they occur, are all connected in thought with the passages next them in the group. Thus 12:13-20 is connected with 13:1-9 by the thought of death as punishment for a wrong course of living, and 13:1-9 with 14:16-24 by the thought that failure to respond to opportunity given leads to rejection. The passages added at the end, 18:9-14a and 19: 1-10, are connected with each other by both presenting examples of repentance as the way to salvation, the man commended being in each case a publican. The thought of both is closely allied with that of 17:12-19 now next them in the group, in which the coming to

3 Cf. p. 3; also Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, pp. 119 ff., and pp. 91 ff.; Burton, Principles of Literary Criticism, pp. 41, 65, and 40; and Sharman, The Teaching of Jesus about the Future, pp. 29 f., 202, and 76 ff.

38

salvation of one of another class despised by Jews is narrated. Moreover, the material now between them is all derived from Mark, so that it seems altogether likely that in Luke's source they stood together. A further suggestion that 12:13-20 belongs with this group may be found in the fact that the material on either side of it has been assigned to the document used by Matthew (pp. 1 f. and 37), and that this passage makes something of an interruption in the course of thought.'

In presenting the inner evidence for distinctness of sources in chap. ii we presented other facts that tend to confirm the idea that the material of this "second group" came from a single document or source. It remains for us in this chapter to recall some of these facts and to present still others that point in the same direction, to see how far the suggestion is confirmed that it was a single document rather than two or more documentary or other sources that furnished the material of the second group, listed on p. 18.

2

The great characteristic one may expect to find in material from a single document is unity, and the greater and more complete is the unity in a group of material the greater is the confidence that is justified that it belongs to one document. As we have already seen, the material we are considering does appear to have unity, all of it centering in its thought about the change from a self-centered, sinful life to one of love to God and men, and being thus unified in thought to a degree that may be considered remarkable. And with this unity of thought in the material, as was also previously suggested,3 there seems to go a unity of purpose or aim, namely, to lead men to repentance that they may be saved, running through the whole of it.

The evidence that it came from a single document furnished by the coherence of the material we are considering and by its unity in thought and in purpose or aim is corroborated by various likenesses in point of view to be found in its parts.

Four of the nine sections contain seven definite geographical references. All of these point either to Jerusalem (five) or to Jericho (two). The sections thus connected with Jerusalem are §§ 2, 6, 8; and those mentioning Jericho are §§ 6 and 9. Section 7 is less definitely shown to be connected with Jersualem,4 and also § 5 with its near neighborhood (p. 26). Thus §§ 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are all more or less closely connected with Jerusalem or parts of Judea near it.5

A point of view which appears even more generally than the geo

I See p. 15.

3 P. 31.

5 See p. 26.

2 Pp. 30 f.

4 See pp. 25 f.

graphical through the material of the second group may be called the economic. The author or compiler of it would appear from the material he used and his arrangement of it to have had a decided interest in men's conduct in connection with property or material possessions. The opening words addressed to Jesus: "Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me" (12:13), and the closing ones: "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold" (19:8), form a striking and apparently significant contrast. And the first half of the contrast is carried on in the attitude of the rich man in the opening parable. He asks himself the question: "What shall I do, because I have not where to bestow my fruits?" and his answer is a typical expression of the selfcentered and self-indulgent attitude in the use of wealth. The view of the compiler is probably reflected in the condemnation which is passed on the man who took it. The answer the author would give as to the proper disposal of troublesome possessions seems to be given in the declaration of Zacchaeus at the close, which we just now quoted (19:8). Of the material between the presentations of these strongly contrasting attitudes in the matter of the use of property almost every part seems to reflect, though not all with the same clearness, an interest in this problem.

In 13:1-9 this interest seems to be shown only in the parable, vss. 6-9, in the endeavor of the owner to make his cultivated ground profitable. In 14:16-24, the parable of the Great Supper, two of the three excuses reported are on the ground of property, a field and five yoke of oxen, newly bought. The bringing-in of the poor and unfortunate to eat the supper is a more central trait in the story that suggests the same interest. In the three parables of chap. 15 the first two present the conduct of a man and a woman when a small part of their material possessions is lost, hunting for and finding it, and rejoicing over the recovery (15:3-6, 8-9). In the third parable (15:11-32) the whole framework is of conduct related to property. The patrimony is divided between two sons, one squanders his share, and is led by destitution to return seeking employment under his father, who gives him a dress of honor and sacrifices an animal for a feast. This last is reported to the elder brother. Then the complaint of the elder brother and the father's reply at the close of the parable both have to do with the use of property. Though the verse that precedes it was not included' in the group, 16:15 may easily be taken as referring, in part at least, to material possessions, especially as the parable which follows immediately in this material I See p. 18, note.

(16:19-31) is one of contrast between the condition of a rich man and a beggar, in this life and after death. It is after this parable that we placed according to thought connection that of the Good Samaritan (10:30-37). There we find a man stripped of his possessions, and another using his own to care for him, paying for further care at an inn, and promising to repay to the host anything more that he spends for the man. The incident of the ten lepers (17:12-19, § 7), which comes next in our reconstruction, fails to show the economic interest. But in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, which follows (18:9-14), the former thanks God that he is not an extortioner, and the final virtue of the two he claims for himself is the giving of tithes of all that he gets. Immediately after this comes the final incident, in which the rich chief publican declares to Jesus his purpose to give half his goods to the poor and restore fourfold if he has wrongfully exacted anything of any man, and in which Jesus thereupon declares: "Today is salvation come to this house." Only § 7 fails to show strongly this interest, and the revelation of it helps to confirm the hypothesis that the material belonged to a single separate document.

As to the vocational point of view of the collector of this material, in connection with the keen interest in men's use of property just spoken of, we may notice that so far as Luke's Perean section goes the only references to the collectors or renters of taxes are in the material of the second group. Here they have a considerable and entirely commendable part. Here alone in the New Testament we find a chief of the tax collectors (apɣiteλóvns) (19:2 ff.). Besides being told that "all" of them were drawing near to Jesus to hear him (15:1), and having the three parables of chap. 15 given by Jesus partly at least, it appears, in explanation of his friendly attitude toward them, we are taken in 18:9-13 and 19:1-10 into the inner life of two of them, which occurs not at all elsewhere in the New Testament. Both of these two are strongly commended, and in fact they would seem to be used as the crowning examples of repentance in a document of which that was the subject. The fulness and vividness with which the Zacchaeus incident is told is also noticeable. These facts together with the interest in the despised and hated previously noted1 make it seem perhaps not improbable that this collection of material owes its origin to one whose business had been the collection of Roman taxes in Palestine. In any case the favorable and largely concrete presentation of men engaged in that business is another trait in the material that binds together different parts (§§ 4, 8, 9).

As we have seen,2 interest in the despised and hated appears in §§ 4, 'Pp. 26 f.

2 Ibid.