Q, QMt, AND QLk IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW AND LUKE

THE PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

(Mt iii, 7b-10; Lk iii, 7b-9)

This section is universally ascribed to Q. In Matthew’s Gospel it contains sixty-three words; in Luke’s sixty-four. These are identical in the two Gospels, except for Luke’s addition of ?a? at the beginning of his 9th verse, his plural (?a?p???) where Matthew has the singular, and his substitution of ????s?e for Matthew’s d???te. The parallelism begins in the middle of the 7th verse of each Gospel; the first part of the verse in each case evidently being supplied by the evangelist. Matthew says John’s remark was addressed to the Pharisees and Sadducees. With his customary indifference to class distinctions among the Jews, Luke represents the words as being addressed to all those who came for baptism. They do not seem appropriate to candidates for baptism, whether Pharisees, Sadducees, or others. Luke uses some form of the verb ???? with the infinitive ???e?? eight times as against Matthew’s twice. As it seems here to have no advantage over d???? it might be safe to suppose that the substitution was made unintentionally, and from the influence of the recollection of similar usage in other parts of Luke’s Gospel. The first half of vs. 7 in each Gospel should be assigned to the evangelists; the remainder of the section to Q.

THE MESSIANIC PROCLAMATION OF THE BAPTIST

(Mt iii, 11-12; Lk iii, 16-17)

Matthew’s vs. 11 and Luke’s vs. 16 are closely parallel to Mark i, 7-8. But they are still more closely parallel with each other, and contain common deviations from Mark which cannot be explained upon the supposition that they are taken from the latter. The wording in the two Gospels, for twenty-six consecutive words, is identical, except for Luke’s omission of ?a? in his vs. 17, and his consequent change of verbs from the finite to the infinitive mood. This section is universally assigned to Q.

THE TEMPTATION

(Mt iv, 3-11; Lk iv, 3-13)

The whole story of the temptation as told by Matthew and Luke includes the two verses of each Gospel which immediately precede the section here specified. These verses are not included here because they seem to the writer to be taken by Matthew and Luke from Mark and not from Q. The common avoidance by Matthew and Luke of Mark’s statement that Jesus was “with the wild beasts,” and their common substitution of d?????? for Mark’s sata???, would point toward their exclusive use of Q and their avoidance of Mark in these verses. On the other hand, Matthew and Luke use very different phraseology to express their common idea of the hunger of Jesus (Luke saying ??? ?fa?e? ??d?? ?? ta?? ???a?? ??e??a??, ?a? s??te?es?e?s?? a?t?? ?pe??ase?, while Matthew says ?a? ??ste?sa? ???a? tesse?????ta ?a? tesse?????ta ???ta?, ?ste??? ?pe??ase?). Matthew agrees with Mark in six consecutive words (except for the transposition of two of them) where Luke has a wording of his own. Whereas Mark says that Jesus was tempted forty days, saying nothing about his hunger, Matthew says he fasted for forty days and was tempted at the expiration of this time, and Luke that he fasted forty days and was tempted during that time. The best explanation for these divergences and similarities is that Matthew and Luke take these verses from Mark but correct him freely under the influence of Q. Q also of course contained these verses, and they will be assigned to him when we come to consider the Q material in Mark. In the rest of the temptation narrative, where Mark has no parallel, there is great verbal similarity. The enlargement of the Old Testament quotation may perhaps be ascribed to Matthew. The transposition of Matthew’s second temptation to the third place in Luke seems to spoil the climax in the narrative; Mr. Streeter (Oxford Studies, p. 152) argues that Luke would not have spoiled so good an arrangement if he had found it in his source. If this argument were allowed, the section would have to be assigned to QMt and QLk. The writer does not feel that the divergences are great enough to necessitate this, and so assigns it to Q.

“BLESSED ARE THE POOR”

(Mt v, 3; Lk vi, 20b)

Matthew’s beatitude is in the third person, Luke’s in the second. Matthew adds “in spirit.” If the beatitude stood alone, the changes in it are not too great to be attributed to Matthew, and the “in spirit” is what might be expected. But taking it in close connection with much material that could not have stood alike in Matthew’s source and in Luke’s it is better to assign it to QMt and QLk.

“BLESSED ARE THEY THAT MOURN”

(Mt v, 5; Lk vi, 21b)

The wording is not at all similar, a?????? being the only word in common. Yet the two beatitudes sound like two versions of the same one. ??a?? is a Lucan word, used eleven times by Luke in his Gospel, against twice by Matthew and three times by Mark. ?e??? is used twice in Luke’s Gospel, and not elsewhere in the New Testament. Both of these occurrences are in Luke’s “Sermon on the Level Place.” These facts, with the context, indicate a source in Luke’s hands partly like, and partly unlike, the source in Matthew’s. The verse is therefore assigned to QMt and QLk.

“BLESSED ARE THEY THAT HUNGER”

(Mt v, 6; Lk vi, 21a)

Matthew’s version is again in the third person and Luke’s in the second. Luke understands the hunger to be literal. Matthew “spiritualizes” by adding t?? d??a??s????. Luke adds ???, to point the contrast between his beatitude and the corresponding woe, which Matthew does not have. In spite of these differences, out of ten words in Matthew’s form and six in Luke’s, five words are identical (except for a deviation in personal ending). Except for the context the verse might be assigned simply to Q; but it is better ascribed to QMt and QLk.

“BLESSED ARE THE PERSECUTED”

(Mt v, 11-12; Lk vi, 22-23)

The verbal similarity is close only in a few places; notably in the ? ?s??? ??? p???? ?? t??? ???a???? (t? ???a??). Out of thirty-five words in Matthew and fifty-one in Luke, only twelve are identical. Two considerations prevent the assignment of these verses to two totally different sources. The first is their contiguity to so much Q material. The second is the presence in them of two translation variants.[94] The second of these two verses, at least, therefore goes back to two different recensions or translations of one original Aramaic document—QMt and QLk.

A SAYING ABOUT SALT

(Mt v, 13; Lk xiv, 34)

This saying evidently stood in both Mark and Q. Luke follows Mark in ?a??? ??? t? ??a and Q in the rest of his saying. Matthew’s form of the saying, which makes it addressed to the disciples, “Ye are the salt of the earth,” involves a much greater change than Matthew ever permits himself when he transcribes the words of Jesus which he finds in Mark. Luke, on the other hand, could scarcely have found the saying in his source with this application to the disciples, and have changed it to its much less pointed and personal form in his own Gospel. The only conclusion possible from a comparison of Matthew and Luke here is that this saying lay in different forms in their sources. But since it occurs in the midst of so much Q material, it is better to assign it to different recensions of Q than to some other unknown source.

A SAYING ABOUT LIGHT

(Mt v, 15; Lk xi, 33)

This is another saying that stood in both Mark and Q. Mark has the saying in Mk iv, 21. His form of it is the apparently less natural one, “Does the lamp come in order that it may be put under a bushel?” etc. Weiss suggests[95] that it has been given this form to make it refer to the coming of Jesus as the light of the world. Neither Matthew nor Luke has copied this feature of Mark’s saying. By his context Matthew makes the saying refer, like the saying about salt, directly to the disciples. Luke has the saying twice: in xi, 33 and viii, 16. In both cases his context would indicate that he took the saying to refer to the teaching of Jesus. Matthew says the light is to give light “to all that are in the house.” Luke does not mention the house, but implies it in his statement that “those who are entering in see the light,” this form being found in both his reports of the saying. Mark says “under the bushel or under the bed”; Matthew, “under the bushel”; Luke once, “in a dish or under the bed,” and a second time, “in a cellar or under the bushel.” Luke’s fondness for the same ending in his two uses of the saying can be explained only by the supposition that it so stood in one of his sources. The same idea in the conclusion of the saying as it appears in Matthew and Luke, and their common avoidance of the opening formula which is peculiar to Mark, would indicate that Matthew and Luke practically forsake Mark in this saying, and follow their other source. Luke, having a doublet for the saying, may be assumed to have taken it once from Mark and once from his other source; but he is evidently much more influenced by his other source than he is by Mark. The non-Marcan source in which the saying was found by Matthew and Luke was evidently an allied, but not an identical, one; the saying is therefore assigned to QMt and QLk.

A SAYING ABOUT THE LAW

(Mt v, 18; Lk xvi, 17)

There are twenty-seven words in Matthew’s form of this saying; fifteen in Luke’s. Only nine words show any correspondence. Matthew’s “until all be fulfilled” is held by Schmiedel[96] to be a gloss, added, not by the final editor of Matthew, who did not care for Jewish legalism, but by an earlier editor. Harnack maintains that it goes back to Jesus, and does not necessarily mean that the law shall ultimately pass away. In his essay in the Oxford Studies Hawkins maintains that the section can be made “very probable” for Q. Considering the wide divergences, the writer would add that this probability can be established only upon the hypothesis of two recensions of Q; upon that hypothesis it would be granted by everyone.

“AGREE WITH THINE ADVERSARY”

(Mt v, 25-26; Lk xii, 58-59)

Luke prefaces this saying with one peculiar to his Gospel: “Why do ye not, of yourselves, judge what is right?” The close connection of this saying with the passage here under consideration, and the verbal resemblances and divergences of the sections in Matthew and Luke—twenty-five identical words out of a total of forty-three in Matthew and forty-nine in Luke—warrant their assignment to QMt and QLk.

ABOUT NON-RESISTANCE AND LOVE OF ENEMIES

(Mt v, 39, 40, 42, 44-48; Lk vi, 27-30, 32, 36)

It is possible to choose out of these verses here and there a few words which, if they stood alone, would be naturally assigned simply to Q. By regarding only the words which very closely correspond, this is accomplished, but with the result that the other words, standing in the same context and in closest connection, must be assigned to totally different sources, or ascribed to the invention or alteration of one of the evangelists. The verbal similarity thruout the section is sometimes close, sometimes remote. Transpositions are frequent. Where Matthew has the simile of the rain and sun, Luke has the comparatively weak words “good to the unthankful and evil.” This is a substitution that Luke certainly would never have made for the strong words of Matthew if these had stood in his source. The author assigns the section to the two recensions, QMt and QLk.

THE LORD’S PRAYER

(Mt vi, 9-13; Lk xi, 2-4)

This is one of the sections that point most clearly to different recensions of Q in the hands of Matthew and Luke. It is improbable that any collection of the sayings of Jesus should have lacked this prayer. It is equally improbable that Luke could have had it before him in the more elaborated form of Matthew, and have abridged it to suit himself. Matthew’s more elaborate form, on the other hand, does not sound like the deliberate alteration of any one author, but like the accumulated liturgical usage of the Christian community. Luke’s introduction to the prayer is certainly not his own invention, and is so appropriate that it is hard to believe that Matthew found it in connection with the prayer in his source and deliberately omitted it. Luke’s form seems decidedly more primary. The use in both Gospels of the strange word ?p???s??? seems to carry the two traditions back to one original; but the variations are certainly greater than can be accounted for by the literary habits of Matthew and Luke, working upon the same original. In other words, that original had passed thru a different history before it reached our two evangelists. The section is assigned to QMt and QLk.

A SAYING ABOUT TREASURES

(Mt vi, 19-21; Lk xii, 33-34)

The verbal similarity is not close. Except for the proximity of other Q material, the section might be assigned to two entirely different sources. There is, especially, a quite different turn given to the saying in Luke, from that which it has in Matthew, by the introduction of the words “Sell your goods and give alms.” In spite of Luke’s interest in alms-giving, as disclosed in the Book of Acts, it is hard to credit him with such a re-wording of his text without some help from his source. But the last twelve words in the section are identical in the two Gospels, except that Luke uses the plural form of the pronoun where Matthew uses the singular. Largely on account of these last twelve words the section is assigned to QMt and QLk.

A SAYING ABOUT THE EYE

(Mt vi, 22-23; Lk xi, 34-35)

Of forty-four words in Matthew and forty in Luke, thirty-two are identical. The divergences in the use of conjunctions (?ta? for ???, e.g.) and the improvement by condensation of the last sentence are such changes as might be easily ascribed to Luke. The section may, with reasonable assurance, be assigned merely to Q.

ABOUT DOUBLE SERVICE

(Mt vi, 24; Lk xvi, 13)

There are twenty-seven words in this saying according to Matthew, twenty-eight according to Luke. Luke appears to have been the innovator; his addition of ????t?? improves the sentence in a way often accomplished by him. With the exception of the presence of this word in Luke and its absence in Matthew the saying is identical in the two Gospels. It is therefore assigned simply to Q.

ABOUT CARE

(Mt vi, 25-33; Lk xii, 22-31)

Considering the length of this passage, the verbal similarity is remarkably close. Out of one hundred and sixty words in Luke and one hundred and sixty-six in Matthew, about one hundred and fifteen are identical. Beginning in the middle of Luke’s vs. 22, and at the first of Matthew’s vs. 25, there are twenty-six words in Luke which are identical with the same number of words arranged in identical order, in Matthew; except that Luke has omitted (or Matthew has supplied) three words, without affecting the meaning of the passage. Beginning with Matthew’s vs. 32 and Luke’s vs. 30, there are again twenty-one identical words out of twenty-four in Luke and thirty-one in Matthew. Matthew may here easily be credited with the addition of the words which constitute the difference; for his ? ???????? and his ?a? t?? d??a??s???? are characteristic of him: the former expression being used by him seven times and not at all by the other evangelists; the latter, seven times by Matthew, once by Luke, and not at all by Mark. His addition of p??t?? in his vs. 33 has a decidedly secondary sound. The passage may therefore be assigned simply to Q.

ABOUT JUDGING

(Mt vii, 1-2; Lk vi, 37-38)

Between the beginning and the end of this saying, both of which are alike in the two Gospels, Luke has an amplification of some length. It is highly improbable that this amplification is the work of Luke, who is much more inclined to condense than to enlarge. The Q context in both Gospels, and the almost exact agreement of the saying, except for the enlargement in Luke, warrant the assignment to QMt and QLk.

THE BEAM AND THE MOTE

(Mt vii, 3-5; Lk vii, 41-42)

The verbal agreement is very close. Out of sixty-four words in Matthew and sixty-nine in Luke fifty-six are identical, except for deviation in mode or number. The greater condensation seems characteristic of Matthew. The changes do not seem too great to be ascribed to the two evangelists working on the same source, Q.

ABOUT SEEKING AND FINDING

(Mt vii, 7-11; Lk xi, 9-13)

The agreement is close, except where Luke in his vs. 12 adds the item of the egg and the scorpion which has no parallel in Matthew. In spite of the addition of this verse in Luke, out of eighty words in his version and seventy-three in Matthew’s sixty-two are still identical. Luke’s substitution of “holy spirit” for Matthew’s indefinite “good things” is characterized by Schmiedel as a “deliberate divergence.” The same phrase would hardly describe the addition of vs. 12. According to the principle here followed, it might seem natural to assign this verse, and so the whole context, to Luke’s recension of Q. But in the whole section, aside from this verse, there are so few deviations, and these so easily accounted for on the part either of Matthew or Luke, that the writer inclines to assign the section simply to Q. Luke’s vs. 12 would then be regarded as a gloss, or an addition of Luke from some source of his own, perhaps oral. Between this disposal of the matter and the assignment of the entire section to QMt and QLk there is not much to choose.

THE GOLDEN RULE

(Mt vii, 12; Lk vi, 31)

The last clause of Matthew may be his own addition, or perhaps a formula common among the Christians. It may have been a gloss, or may have been found by Matthew in his recension of Q. At all events, it is not like Matthew to have added it himself; his tendency toward condensation is too well known. Except for this addition the section is sufficiently alike in the two Gospels to admit its assignment simply to Q.

THE NARROW GATE

(Mt vii, 13-14; Lk xiii, 23-24)

With much resemblance in meaning there is here very little similarity in wording. Luke’s saying is much briefer, and is introduced by a question addressed to Jesus. It sounds almost like an abstract of the saying as it stands in Matthew—if only a precedent could be shown for Luke’s making such an abstract. One can hardly speak with any assurance; but considering the difference of setting, the fact that in Luke the verses we are here considering are part of a considerably longer speech, and the slight verbal resemblances, it may be best to assign Matthew’s version to Q, and Luke’s to some source of his own, whether oral or written. If assignment to QMt and QLk is not impossible, it is certainly difficult.

THE TREE AND ITS FRUITS

(Mt vii, 16-18; Lk vi, 43-44)

For this saying Matthew has a doublet in xii, 33-35. Mt vii, 20, is also an exact reproduction of vii, 16, with the particle ??a?e prefixed. If Matthew found this saying in two of his sources, it is impossible to say what the second of these was, for it apparently was not Mark. In Matthew’s second report of the same saying he has used the words “generation of vipers,” which he has in iii, 7, ascribed to John the Baptist. The fact that both speeches in which the phrase occurs have to do with trees, and the fact of the repetition, not only of the saying twice in Matthew, but of the same sentence twice in one report, may perhaps indicate that Matthew found the saying only in his version of Q, and is himself responsible for the repetition. Or the saying may have been recorded twice in Matthew’s version of Q, with the variations shown in Matthew’s two citations of it. Upon either hypothesis the form of Mt xii, 35, is much nearer to Lk vi, 45, than is Mt vii, 19-20, or vss. 16-18. The writer assigns the section to QMt and QLk.

WARNING AGAINST SELF-DECEPTION

(Mt vii, 21-23; Lk vi, 46; xiii, 26-27)

Of the first of these three verses in each Gospel, Harnack says it is “perhaps not derived from Q.” But the verse stands in substantially the same context in both Gospels—in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Level Place in Luke. In spite of the difference introduced thruout the verse by Matthew’s having it in the third person and Luke’s giving it in the second, a reminiscence of the same source may be found in the fact that ????e is used by Matthew in the vocative, where a more strict construction would require the accusative. The last two verses of the section Matthew has combined with the first, whereas in Luke the context for them is quite different. Thru all three verses Luke seems to have the more primary form. Not only the second person of the verbs, and the direct address of Jesus to the crowd, but the words, “we have eaten and drunk in thy presence and thou hast taught in our streets” have an original sound, whereas Matthew’s form, “Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, we have preached in thy name and in thy name have cast out demons,” would seem rather to come from a time when many men had been preaching in the name of Jesus. Harnack says that the two sayings are “quite independent,” but that there is “a common source in the background.” This common source in the background might be the undifferentiated Q, and the immediate sources might be the two recensions of that document. The general character of the sayings, and the context, would encourage such an assignment. Since here as in many other places the version of Matthew seems to indicate adaptation to a later time, but since the Gospel of Matthew cannot be shown to be later than the Gospel of Luke, it seems fair to attribute the divergence between the two evangelists here to the different history thru which their two versions of their common source had passed before coming into their hands. The writer therefore assigns the section to QMt and QLk, tho not without admission that it might be as well to assign the section in one Gospel to Q and in the other to some entirely other source.

THE TWO HOUSES

(Mt vii, 24-27; Lk vi, 47-49)

Comparison of these sections shows a much slighter verbal agreement between them than might have been expected from their general agreement in idea. Even in idea the agreement is not extremely close. Matthew’s two houses are built, respectively, upon the rock and the sand; Luke’s are built, respectively, with and without a foundation, irrespective of the soil. If Matthew’s version be here regarded as the more primary, as is warranted by the fact of its greater simplicity (Matthew seems here also to be nearer to the Aramaic, as indicated by his recurrent use of ?a? at the beginning of a sentence), the reinterpretation and consequent re-wording shown in Luke’s version are altogether too great to be ascribed to the hand of Luke himself, working upon a source identical with Matthew’s version. Let anyone compare Luke’s treatment of the sayings of Jesus in Mark with the treatment of this saying, which would be required upon the hypothesis of an identical source before him and Matthew, and he will feel that that hypothesis cannot be maintained. And yet, in addition to the general similarity in the sections, there is one other thing that argues strongly for their inclusion in some form of Q, viz., their position, as conclusions, respectively, to the Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain. The writer therefore ascribes them to QMt and QLk.

THE CENTURION’S SON

(Mt viii, 5-10; Lk vii, 1-9)

This is the one narrative section almost universally assigned to Q. But in the first part of the story there is wide divergence. Matthew says the centurion himself came to Jesus. Luke not only says he did not come, but explains why he sent messengers instead of coming himself. Burton alleges that Matthew’s omission of the item of the messengers is characteristic of him, with his tendency to condensation. But that the messengers were not in the original story, but were added by Luke (or his source) and not omitted by Matthew, is plain from the fact that the conversation, even in Luke, is based upon the supposition that the centurion had made his request in person. In Luke’s vss. 3-6, which contain the account of the sending of the messengers, there are at least five Lucan words (??t???, pa?a?e??e???, sp??da???, a????, ?p????t??). These occur in the portion of the story unparalleled in Matthew. But there are also three such Lucan words in the two following verses, where the story of Luke runs quite closely parallel to that of Matthew (d??, ????sa, tass?e???). The changing of a detail, even an important detail, in the narrative part of such a section, especially when contrasted with general faithfulness to the source in that part containing the words of Jesus, would be characteristic of Luke. The humility and faith of the centurion are much enhanced by the change. Yet, as JÜlicher remarks, Luke probably did not invent this item of his story; he may have imported it from an oral tradition, following Q in the remainder of the story. Even the presence of the “Lucan” words would not prove the Lucan invention of the sending of the messengers, since these words may have come from Luke’s special source for this item and not from himself, tho this latter supposition would tell against the assumption that this special source was an oral one. Of these Lucan words, ??t??? is used a second time by Luke (xiv, 8) in a passage not paralleled in Matthew; it is not used by him in Acts. ?a?a?e??e??? is used once by Mark, three times by Matthew, eight times by Luke in his Gospel, and twenty times in the Book of Acts. Sp??da??? is found here only in the Gospels, and not in Acts. ?a???? is used once by Matthew, once by Mark, twice by Luke in his Gospel, and three times in Acts. ?p????te? (in the intransitive sense) occurs twice in Matthew, once in Mark, three times in Luke’s Gospel, and not in Acts. ??? occurs once in Mark, once in Matthew, twice in Luke’s Gospel, and eight times in Acts. ????? is found in Luke only among the Gospels, and twice in Acts. ??ss? is found in some texts of Matthew in this passage, but has probably been assimilated from Luke. It is found in one other passage in Matthew, in this passage in Luke, not in Mark, and five times in Acts. These facts cannot be said to throw much light on whether Luke is here to be charged with the verses in which these words occur, or whether they may have stood in his source. But considering the extremely close agreement between Luke’s vss. 7b-9 and Matthew’s vss. 8b-10 (note especially the e?p? ????, unparalleled elsewhere), the best conclusion may be that the story stood in Q, much as it now stands in Matthew, and that Luke, perhaps having heard this other version of the story, has himself altered the narrative part of it.

“MANY SHALL COME FROM EAST AND WEST”

(Mt viii, 11-12; Lk xiii, 28-29)

In Matthew these words are interpolated into the story of the centurion’s son; in Luke they occur as part of an eschatological speech. They seem better in place with Luke than with Matthew. The sentence “There shall be weeping,” etc., is transposed by one evangelist or the other; as it is used in five other places by Matthew, and as he has probably imported into the story of the centurion the verses in which it occurs, it is probable that the transposition is due to him. There is sufficient divergence in wording between Matthew and Luke to warrant the assignment of the verses to QMt and QLk.

TWO MEN WHO WOULD FOLLOW JESUS

(Mt viii, 19-22; Lk ix, 57-60)

To these two sayings Matthew and Luke supply respectively their own introductions. In the first saying, after the introduction, thirty-one consecutive words are identical, except for Luke’s substitution of e?pe? for the original ???e? which still appears in Matthew. In the second saying, after the introduction, the verbal resemblance is close, tho not so close as in the first saying. The second half of Luke’s vs. 60 has a late sound, and may be attributed either to Luke or his copy of Q. But the resemblance thruout is close enough to warrant the assignment of the section simply to Q.

“THE HARVEST IS GREAT”

(Mt ix, 37-38; Lk x, 2)

This saying occurs in Matthew’s sending out of the twelve and in Luke’s sending out of the seventy. Twenty-one consecutive words are identical except for the transposition of two words. It is assigned to Q.

“THE LABORER IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE”

(Mt x, 10c; Lk x, 7b)

Mark and Q both contained accounts of the sending out of the disciples. This is one of the fragments preserved from Q by Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. It is identical except for the substitution of ?s??? for t??f??. The change may be attributed to Luke or his recension of Q; in this case the change is so slight as to be easily chargeable to Luke; it may bespeak a time later than that indicated by Matthew’s form—a time when the traveling preachers received not only their food but some slight wage. It stood in Q.

“GREET THE HOUSE”

(Mt x, 11-13; Lk x, 5-8)

This is one of the best illustrations of the advantages of the hypothesis of the two recensions of Q. Matthew says “greet the house.” Luke preserves the Aramaic form of that greeting, which was “Peace to this house.” But that this, and not Matthew’s indefinite form, was what stood in the original Q is shown by the fact that Matthew adds, “If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is unworthy, let your peace return to you.”[97] Luke has here the phrase “son of peace,” similar to the phrases elsewhere found in his Gospel, “sons of light,” “sons of consolation,” “sons of this generation,” “sons of the resurrection.” These phrases have an Aramaic sound which we should expect to encounter in almost any of the Gospels sooner than in Luke’s. He certainly never would have invented them. The translation variants stamp the section as belonging to QMt and QLk.

“MORE TOLERABLE FOR SODOM”

(Mt x, 15; Lk x, 12)

The variations are slight. ??? might be taken to indicate QMt, but it might also easily have been omitted by Luke because of its Aramaic tone. The section may be safely ascribed to Q.

“SHEEP AMONG WOLVES”

(Mt x, 16a; Lk x, 3)

Luke substitutes ???a? for Matthew’s p??ata, thus heightening the contrast. It may be assigned to Q.

HOW TO ACT UNDER PERSECUTION

(Mt x, 19-20; Lk xii, 11-12)

Although there is general similarity in idea, there is very little verbal resemblance here, perhaps not enough to warrant assignment to any common source, even in differing recensions. Yet the proximity of other Q material in both Gospels and the general character of the verses will perhaps make assignment to QMt and QLk more reasonable than any other.

THE DISCIPLE AND HIS TEACHER

(Mt x, 24-25; Lk vi, 40)

The agreement here is close for a part of the saying; but Matthew adds a clause about the servant and his lord, and a reference to the Beelzebul controversy. Whether attributed to Luke or his source, his addition of ?at??t?s???? may indicate the feeling that the statement as to the equality of the disciple and his teacher required some qualification. This would be more strongly felt, however, if Luke had preserved the word ??????, which would refer more unmistakably to Jesus. In Luke this section occurs in the Sermon on the Plain; since Matthew has put much material in his corresponding Sermon on the Mount which is not in Luke’s Sermon on the Plain, even when he has had to bring this from many other connections, it is strange that he has left out of that sermon this saying, which stands in the corresponding discourse in Luke. This is one of the phenomena difficult of explanation upon the simple hypothesis of Q; since upon that hypothesis Matthew should have found this saying in the same connection as that in which Luke found it, and why, so finding it, he not only took pains to add so much to it, but to transpose it upon the opposite principle to that which he has followed in the transposition of most other Q material, is not easy to explain. On these grounds the saying is ascribed to QMt and QLk.

EXHORTATION TO FEARLESS CONFESSION

(Mt x, 26-33; Lk xii, 2-9)

The agreements and variations in this section are precisely such as to indicate an ultimate common source, but immediate different sources. In Matthew’s vs. 27 and Luke’s vs. 3, with many of the same words retained, the meaning is directly reversed. On the other hand, f?e?s?e (f????te) with ?p? is found here only in the New Testament, and not at all in the Septuagint. Unless this be ascribed to assimilation, it is a coincidence too marked to be explained except by the supposition of an ultimate common source. The same thing is to be said of the phrase ??????se? ?? in Matthew’s vs. 32 and Luke’s vs. 8. Yet in the midst of the section there is a passage of twenty or twenty-five words in which there is practically no verbal coincidence, tho the idea is the same. Luke substitutes “have not anything else that they can do,” for Matthew’s phrase “can not kill the soul”; it has been suggested that this latter was not congenial to Luke’s Greek method of thot. Where Matthew mentions the price of sparrows as “two for a farthing,” Luke specifies it as “five for two farthings.” The section contains no narrative matter. A comparison of the deviations between Matthew and Luke here, with their agreements with each other in sections where they are taking over the discourse material of Jesus from Mark, will show that these deviations are decidedly too great to be ascribed to the agency of either Matthew or Luke. The passage is therefore assigned to QMt and QLk.

STRIFE AMONG RELATIVES

(Mt x, 34-36; Lk xii, 51-53)

Luke’s version seems more elaborated and less original than Matthew’s. Luke certainly would not have substituted the comparatively colorless word d?ae??s?? for ??a??a? if this latter had stood in his source. Without the hypothesis of the two recensions this section would have to be assigned to totally different, perhaps oral, sources. d?ae???? is used once by Mark, and Matthew and Luke have both copied it from him in that connection. Neither Matthew nor Mark uses the word again; Luke uses it in five other places in his Gospel, including the section now under consideration. As he uses it but twice in Acts, it seems more likely to have been found in his source than to have been here inserted by him. This would tell strongly against the supposition that Matthew and Luke are here working over an identical source; in other words, it would remove this section from simple undifferentiated Q. Only the general character of the material, its close resemblance in meaning in the two Gospels, and its proximity in each Gospel to other Q material, can justify its assignment to QMt and QLk—and then, even, with uncertainty.

CONDITIONS OF DISCIPLESHIP

(Mt x, 37-39; Lk xiv, 26-27; xvii, 33)

Luke’s statement is much stronger, and so presumably older, than Matthew’s. Wellhausen says Matthew has been “refined out of Luke.” In Matthew, the two sayings about taking up the cross, and about finding and losing one’s life, follow each other; in Luke, at this place, they are separated by more than three chapters. But both Matthew and Luke give both of these sayings a second time, and the second time the two sayings are continuous in both, as they also are in Mark, from whom they are taken. The facts seem therefore to have been that Matthew and Luke each took both of these sayings from two sources; that in Mark the two sayings occurred together; that in Luke’s recension of Q (at least), they were separated; that they were probably separated in Matthew’s Q also, but he has combined them according to his habit, helped here by the recollection of the continuity of the two sayings in Mark. The substitution of “who seeks to find his soul” for the simpler form “who finds his soul” might easily be ascribed to Luke; it is in the interest of logicality. But it is quite unlike Luke to have added from oral tradition, or to have inserted from any other written source, so much matter of his own as is found in his vs. 26. The section is therefore assigned to QMt and QLk.

“HE THAT RECEIVETH YOU”

(Mt x, 40; Lk x, 16)

Luke has a doublet for this saying in Lk ix, 48, where the form is slightly more like Matthew’s than at this point; but ix, 48, appears to be taken from Mark, with reminiscence of Q. The saying is also given twice in the Fourth Gospel, and with the saying just considered constitutes the total of sayings occurring in all four Gospels. Luke has taken the saying once from Mark and once from Q. Considering Matthew’s partiality to doublets, the fact that he has the saying only once might be taken to indicate its absence from his recension of Q. The saying may therefore be assigned to QLk.

THE QUESTION OF THE BAPTIST AND JESUS’ ANSWER

(Mt xi, 2-19; Lk vii, 18-35)

With the exception of the introduction in Luke, this long section may safely be assigned to Q. The preceding narrative in Matthew has supplied a warrant for the statement of Jesus about his healings; Luke, not having led up to the conversation by a similar narrative, inserts the statement here that “in that hour he healed many sick,” etc. After the introductions, the verbal resemblance is extremely close, considering the length of the section. Of one hundred and ninety-nine words in Matthew and two hundred and three in Luke, about one hundred and sixty-eight are identical.

THE WOE UPON THE GALILEAN CITIES

(Mt xi, 20-24; Lk x, 13-15)

This section is practically identical in both Gospels, except for Matthew’s vs. 24 and the last half of vs. 23, which have no parallel in Luke. They are an elaboration upon the words that precede them, and may be ascribed to Matthew or an editor. The section may be assigned to Q.

“I THANK THEE, O FATHER”

(Mt xi, 25-27; Lk x, 21-22)

The introduction, again, has been supplied by each evangelist, tho it is not impossible that the introduction given in Matthew may have been taken from Q. After the introductions, twenty-nine consecutive words are identical. Again, after Luke’s insertion of a few transitional words, the saying, “All things are given to me of my Father,” runs almost, tho not quite, word for word in the two Gospels. The connecting words in Luke would seem to indicate that these two sayings were not consecutive in Q. It is not necessary to have recourse to the recensions here.

JESUS’ DEFENSE AGAINST THE PHARISEES

(Mt xii, 27-28; Lk xi, 19-20)

These verses occur in the midst of a narrative which Matthew and Luke have taken from Mark. Mark has no parallel for these verses, and the resemblance in Matthew and Luke is very close; the saying is in fact identical except for Luke’s use of da?t??? for Matthew’s p?e?at?. The fact that in the succeeding verses Matthew follows Mark practically word for word, while Luke has a version entirely his own, may perhaps indicate that the narrative stood in both Mark and Q, Matthew having followed Mark thruout, except for the verses here considered, and Luke having followed chiefly Q, with an occasional deference to Mark. It may safely be assigned to Q.

“HE THAT IS NOT WITH ME”

(Mt xii, 30; Lk xi, 23)

A statement the exact reverse of this occurs in Mk ix, 40, in a different context. The words here are identical in the two Gospels, the order also being the same. It stood in Q.

JONAH AND THE NINEVITES

(Mt xii, 38-42; Lk xi, 29-32)

Each evangelist has supplied his own introduction. Matthew’s vs. 40 is probably an interpolation, or at least a late addition. Beginning with Matthew’s vs. 41 and Luke’s vs. 32 (the order of Luke’s verses has been reversed, perhaps by error of a scribe, since no motive appears for the change), there are fifty-three words in Matthew, fifty-five in Luke, and fifty-three of them are identical. The verses are therefore universally assigned to Q.

A SPEECH ABOUT BACKSLIDING

(Mt xii, 43-45; Lk xi, 24-26)

The correspondence here also is very close; out of sixty-two words in Matthew and fifty-five in Luke, fifty-four are identical. Matthew’s surplus of eight words is accounted for by the addition of a clause not found in Luke, and probably a later addition in Matthew; it does not disturb the practical identity thruout the rest of the saying. It evidently stood in Q.

“BLESSED ARE THE EYES THAT SEE”

(Mt xiii, 16-17; Lk x, 23-24)

Luke has supplied his own introduction. Matthew has, as parallel to “the eyes that see,” “the ears that hear.” This may be a later addition in Matthew; or Luke, not caring so much for the Aramaic parallelism as Matthew does, may have omitted it. Luke has “kings” where Matthew has “righteous men”; d??a??? is a favorite word with Matthew; on the other hand, Luke’s use of “kings” may indicate an apologetic intention upon Luke’s part. The saying may be assigned to Q, and the variations charged jointly to Matthew and Luke.

THE PARABLE OF THE YEAST

(Mt xiii, 33; Lk xiii, 20-21)

The introductions in the two Gospels are slightly different. After these, fourteen consecutive words are alike, the only deviation being Matthew’s use (as always) of t?? ???a??? where Luke has t?? ?e??. The parable stood in Q.

THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND

(Mt xv, 14; Lk vi, 39)

This is another instance of a saying which occurs in Luke’s Sermon on the Plain but outside of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. Matthew has apparently inserted it in the midst of a discourse against the Pharisees, the rest of which he has taken from Mark. The sayings in Matthew and Luke are not identical. If the saying stood in Q, and Matthew removed it from its Lucan connection to its present position in his Gospel, this was certainly a very unusual procedure with him. The saying is given as a “parable” in Luke, and has the brevity of the parables that were given in Q, tho not their usual reference to the kingdom of God. It is hard to think of Matthew, with his fondness for these brief parables, deliberately omitting to call the saying by this name when it was so called in his source. On the whole, however, it seems best to assign the saying to Q, and to charge Matthew with its displacement.

A SAYING ABOUT FAITH

(Mt xvii, 20; Lk xvii, 6)

The parallel here is not close. But Matthew has a doublet in xxi, 21, and Mark a similar saying in xi, 22. The saying seems therefore to have been in both Mark and Q, and was taken by Matthew from both sources and by Luke from one. The connection of the saying in Luke indicates that he took it from Q; yet his saying is not the same as Matthew’s, in that he substitutes a sycamore tree for Matthew’s mountain, thus greatly weakening the comparison. The two sayings certainly cannot have been derived by Matthew and Luke from an identical source. It is only on the ground of their general logian character that they can be assigned to QMt and QLk.

A SAYING ABOUT OFFENSES

(Mt xviii, 7; Lk xvii, 1)

The comparison here is complicated by the fact that this saying apparently stood in both Mark and Q. It is closely, but in reverse order by the two later evangelists, connected with a saying taken from Mark. It may be assigned to Q.

THE STRAY SHEEP

(Mt xviii, 12-14; Lk xv, 4-7)

There seems here to be little or no literary relationship. The two passages appear to be rather different versions of the same parable, which have come down thru different channels. If it be assumed that Matthew’s version is from Q, there is not enough literary agreement between it and Luke’s to prove the latter to be from any recension of that document. Considering the larger content of Matthew’s recension, and his apparently greater unwillingness to make omissions from it, it might be safe to assign this to QMt, but to leave Luke’s source for his version unspecified. At the same time it is well to remember that the parables stand apparently half-way between the narratives and the sayings, as regards the willingness of the evangelists to deviate from the wording found before them. If enough may be allowed for this difference between parables and sayings, the divergence between the two Gospels in this section might not be considered too great to be accounted for by the known habits of Matthew and Luke, working on different recensions of an original Q; and so the passage might be assigned to QMt and QLk—but certainly not with any confidence.

ABOUT FORGIVENESS

(Mt xviii, 21-22; Lk xvii, 4)

These might be considered merely as variants of the same original saying. If the reference to Peter be taken, like some of the other references to him in Matthew, to be later than the saying itself, the insertion of this reference in Matthew, whether by Matthew or his source, may have changed the form of the saying from its original as preserved in Luke. But the very slight verbal agreement makes any specification of a common literary source hazardous.

REWARDS FOR DISCIPLESHIP

(Mt xix, 28; Lk xxii, 28-30)

The first part of this section varies greatly between Matthew and Luke; with strong similarity in idea, there is practically no verbal agreement. The last ten words are almost identical. Matthew inserts the section into a speech the rest of which is taken from Mark. Luke takes the same speech from Mark, without making this insertion. The verses occur with him in quite another context. His vs. 30a is more primary than anything in Matthew’s version. The first part of the section contains too little agreement to have been worked out of an identical source; the last part agrees so closely as to indicate an ultimate common source. We therefore assign the section to QMt and QLk.

AGAINST THE PHARISEES

(Mt xxiii, 4; Lk xi, 46)

The agreement is slight, but somewhat significant. f??t??? is used only thrice in the New Testament outside of this passage. This is the chief linguistic warrant for assigning the passage to QMt and QLk.

“WHOSO HUMBLES HIMSELF”

(Mt xxiii, 12; Lk xiv, 11)

This proverbial saying is used by Luke in this instance as the conclusion of a speech about taking the chief seats at a feast. He also uses it in xviii, 14, as the conclusion to his parable of the Publican and the Pharisee in the temple. Matthew also uses it in two very different contexts; here as part of a speech against the Pharisees, and in xviii, 4, with reference to a child as type of true greatness. Considering these various usages, the brevity of the saying, and its apparently proverbial character, it can scarcely be assigned to any form of Q, tho it certainly cannot be proved not to have been in that document.

AGAINST THE PHARISEES

(Mt xxiii, 13; Lk xi, 52)

It is possible to regard these rather as variants of the same saying than as workings over of the same source. Even in the divergences, however, some striking resemblances are to be noted. Matthew says ??e?ete t?? as??e?a?; Luke says ??ate t?? ??e?da. These words seem to betray a common literary source in the background. The idea conveyed by the two phrases is the same. Matthew says, “Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven before men”; Luke says, “Ye take away the key of knowledge” (of salvation, probably, as in Lk i, 77). The last part of the saying is still more unmistakably based upon an ultimate common source. Yet, as I have so often argued with reference to other and similar sections, to ascribe to either Matthew or Luke, working upon an identical source, the amount of re-working here involved, credits them with a degree of freedom in the treatment of Jesus’ sayings which finds no parallel in their treatment of such sayings as they take them from the Gospel of Mark. We therefore assign the section to QMt and QLk. But such assignment cannot be insisted upon.

AGAINST THE PHARISEES

(Mt xxiii, 23-26; Lk xi, 39-42)

There is thruout this section a varying degree of verbal agreement. The sections are very differently placed, Matthew putting them among the Jerusalem sayings, Luke early in the ministry. What is conclusive evidence for some form of Q, indeed for the two recensions, is the translation variant in vss. 26 and 41.[98] The section is thus not merely assigned, but we may say is demonstrated to belong, to QMt and QLk.

A WOE UPON THE SCRIBES

(Mt xxiii, 29-31; Lk xi, 47-48)

There is so little verbal agreement here as to raise the question whether we have not merely two different traditions of the same saying. What inclines us to cling to the assignment to QMt and QLk is the fact that these words are preceded and followed in both Gospels by passages which have much more close verbal agreement with each other than is found in this section. The verses are assigned to Q by all five of the investigators quoted at the beginning of this chapter. But anyone who will compare the slight verbal agreement thruout these verses with the verbal identity shown in other passages assigned to Q will wonder why these scholars have not availed themselves of the hypothesis of the two recensions. For upon the basis of their treatment of other passages, both from Q and from Mark, the divergences in this passage are altogether too great to be assigned directly to Matthew or Luke.

“I SEND UNTO YOU PROPHETS”

(Mt xxiii, 34-36; Lk xi, 49-51)

The assignment of this section to simple Q, and the ascription of all divergences to one or the other of the evangelists, would be easier if it could be shown that either evangelist shows a uniform tendency in the divergences. But such is not the case. Luke seems more primary, and nearer to the source, when he quotes the words of the passage from “The Wisdom of God”; for no evangelist, finding the words ascribed to Jesus in his source, would take them away from him and ascribe them to anyone else. But Matthew, or his source, may merely have interpreted the words “The Wisdom of God” to refer to Jesus. Luke is later than Matthew, where he substitutes “apostles” for Matthew’s “scribes”; but Matthew is secondary to Luke where he has sta???sete, in apparent reminiscence of the death of Jesus. He is also secondary in his vs. 34, which seems to reflect the persecutions of the Christians. But Luke again is secondary in omitting Matthew’s mistaken identification of Zachariah as the son of Barachiah. The use of verbs in the second person in Luke and in the third person in Matthew is accounted for by the quotation in the one Gospel and the direct address in the other. ?p? t?? ??? and ?p? ?ata???? ??s?? may be translation variants. Careful comparison of the verbal similarities indicates unmistakably a common literary source lying in the background; but a source much worked over before reaching Matthew and Luke.

THE LAMENT OVER JERUSALEM

(Mt xxiii, 37-39; Lk xiii, 34-35)

Tho placed so differently by Matthew and Luke, this section has the greatest verbal agreement. Out of fifty-six words in Matthew and fifty-three in Luke, fifty are identical. Luke omits the repetition of one verb, omits “desolate” and substitutes two particles of his own for four of Matthew’s. Harnack’s explanation of Luke’s omission of “desolate”[99] on the ground that the meaning is the same without it does not seem conclusive. It is better to assume that it was added by Matthew in deference to Jer xxii, 5. The wording of the section shows so little deviation between the two Gospels that it may be assigned simply to Q.

THE DAY OF THE SON OF MAN

(Mt xxiv, 26-27; Lk xvii, 23-24)

There is slight verbal resemblance here, but enough to indicate unmistakably a literary relationship. QMt and QLk are much more likely than simple Q.

THE BODY AND THE EAGLES

(Mt xxiv, 28; Lk xvii, 37)

In Matthew, but not in Luke, these words form the conclusion to the words just considered. The substitution of s?a for pt?a sounds like an oral variation; but it may be Luke’s way of avoiding a word which he nowhere uses. The wording is otherwise so close as to warrant assignment to simple Q.

THE DAYS OF NOAH

(Mt xxiv, 37-39; Lk xvii, 26-27)

Luke, or his recension of Q, says here, as elsewhere, “the days of the Son of man,” where Matthew says “the parousia of the Son of man.” The reason for this deviation is not obvious, unless the variation was in the source. We therefore assign the passage to the two recensions.

THE ONE TAKEN, THE OTHER LEFT

(Mt xxiv, 40-41; Lk xvii, 34-35)

In Matthew, but not in Luke, these words are immediately connected with those just discussed. Luke, or his source, wishes to indicate that the parousia may be in the night, and so adds the words ???t? and ??????. But the arrangement of the verses is in the same order in both Gospels, and there is strong similarity, especially in vss. 41 and 35. We consider assignment to QMt and QLk to account most nearly for all the facts.

THE WATCHING SERVANT

(Mt xxiv, 43-44; Lk xii, 39-40)

The verbal coincidence here is great. The last fourteen words are exactly alike in both Gospels, even to their order. It should be assigned to simple Q.

THE TRUE AND FALSE SERVANT

(Mt xxiv, 45-51; Lk xii, 42-46)

The connection of these sections with the one just considered is the same in both Gospels. The verbal agreement is equally striking. Out of one hundred and ten words in Matthew and one hundred and two in Luke, eighty-two are identical; twenty-six of these occur consecutively and with no deviation in order. The section may be assigned to Q.

RESULTS OF THE PRECEDING INVESTIGATION

This investigation yields about one hundred and ninety Q verses (in some instances only parts of verses) in Matthew, paralleled by about one hundred and eighty Q verses in Luke. The difference in the number of verses has no significance, being due chiefly to the verses not being similarly divided in the two Gospels. Of this total, ninety-eight in Matthew and ninety-four in Luke are ascribed simply to Q. This does not mean, as has been said before, that Matthew and Luke both had a document Q, and in addition Matthew had a document QMt and Luke another document QLk; but merely that Matthew and Luke had two recensions of Q, each of which had passed thru a history of its own, and had become in many ways differentiated from the other; and that in certain parts of each recension such differentiation had not occurred, so that these sections of the two recensions may still be referred to under the symbol Q. Of the two recensions, therefore, so far as these reappear in parallels in Matthew and Luke, about half in each differs so widely from the same half in the other that it is altogether unreasonable to attribute the difference to either or both of the evangelists.

If it be asked, why we should attempt to attribute to any form of Q this material which is too seriously dissimilar to have been drawn directly by the evangelists from an identical source—why we do not simply assign this to totally separate sources, and restrict Q to the sections which are practically identical in the two Gospels—the answer is: this material in the two gospels seems to betray not merely an oral but a literary affinity; it is of the same general character as that which is assigned directly to Q; and almost without exception, in one gospel or the other or in both, it is inextricably mingled with this.

Thruout this discussion the distinction between narrative material and sayings-material, and the difference in treatment accorded to these two kinds of material by Matthew and Luke, must be constantly borne in mind. The amount of literary divergence that may be fairly assigned to the initiative of Matthew or Luke in their use of a document of sayings is hard to define. But Sir John Hawkins is surely wrong when he says[100] that Matthew and Luke need not be expected to adhere more closely to Q than they do to Mark. For in the sayings of Jesus which they find in Mark, Matthew and Luke do generally adhere very closely. It is in the narrative portions of Mark that they permit themselves liberties. But there is little or no narrative in Q; the only certain instance of narrative being that of the healing of the centurion’s son; and in this instance it is significant that the deviations between Matthew and Luke are in the narrative and not in the logian portions. Speaking of each document as a whole, it should be clear that Q would be followed with very much greater fidelity than Mark by both Matthew and Luke.

Now the translation variants are proof positive of two Greek translations of the original Aramaic Q, these two translations having been made from two texts of the original which betray some divergences or corruptions. Tho these two Greek translations were thus made from two Aramaic copies, nevertheless in about half of the matter which Matthew and Luke agree in taking from these translations no substantial differences had crept in; but half, also, shows deviations too great to be ascribed to Matthew and Luke. If all the matter common to Matthew and Luke were identical, or nearly so, no need would arise for QMt and QLk. If it were all as dissimilar as half of it is, no place would be left for Q of any sort. The distinction between Matthew’s and Luke’s recensions of Q best accounts alike for the agreements and the divergences.

In the preceding examination the number of Q (including QMt and QLk) verses ascribed to Matthew and Luke respectively is substantially the same as the number ascribed to them by Harnack and Hawkins in Tables II and III (pp. 110-11 and 116-17). This agreement merely indicates that Harnack and Hawkins have confined their Q material pretty closely to the sections which show the greatest verbal agreement. The difference between the position reached in these pages and that reached by Harnack and Hawkins is that the present writer feels that those two scholars cannot be justified in ascribing such wide divergences to the literary activity of the evangelists themselves, and that they have hampered themselves by not taking advantage of the fact of the recensions, as guaranteed to us by the translation variants.