Q IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF LUKE (QLk)

The single tradition of Luke will now be examined with reference to possible Q material unparalleled in Matthew. Narrative material will not be considered. As Luke has omitted much more of Mark than Matthew has, and as he has a much larger amount of non-Marcan material which obviously bears no sign of having stood in any form of Q, it is natural to expect the additions to our total of Q matter to be much less in the single tradition of Luke than of Matthew.

THE PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

(Lk iii, 10-14)

This section in Luke follows immediately the description of John’s preaching which Luke and Matthew have taken from Q. It is a natural supposition that it stood in Luke’s Q, tho not in Matthew’s, just as the discussion between Jesus and John at the baptism stood in Matthew’s but not in Luke’s. But there is one thing which indicates either that it did not so stand, or that it has been worked over by Luke in a manner peculiar to him. That is the presence of dialogue. If this dialogue appeared only in those sayings of Jesus that appear in Luke but not in Matthew, and that are of a character to have come from any form of Q, we should pick out this item as a characteristic of the recension used by Luke. But dialogue is also a characteristic of many of the Lucan parables which could not under any hypothesis be attributed to Q. In spite of its general resemblance to the Q matter just preceding, it seems best, therefore, to attribute this little section to some peculiar Lucan source.

THE INITIAL PREACHING OF JESUS IN NAZARETH

(Lk iv, 16-30)

This is a complete re-working of Marcan material. In his Synoptische Tafeln zu den drei Älteren Evangelien, J. Weiss attributes it to a special source. This assignment is correct, in the sense that there are sayings of Jesus in the section which Luke would certainly not manufacture, and which he must therefore have derived from some source. At all events there is no Q material in the passage.

THE CALL OF PETER

(Lk v, 1-11)

The same is to be said of this section as has just been said of iv, 16-30. It is a re-working of Mk i, 16-20. The latter part of vs. 10 has an especially genuine sound. ?????? occurs here only in the Gospels. The dialogue characteristic of Luke appears here also. With the possible exception of the latter half of vs. 10, nothing in the section could be attributed to any form of Q.

THE WOES

(Lk vi, 24-26)

We have here the alternatives of supposing that Luke invented these woes, that he found them in some altogether different source and inserted them here in the midst of his Q material, or that they stood, with the beatitudes, in his recension of Q. Since the beatitudes themselves, without the woes, show such difference as to preclude Matthew’s and Luke’s having drawn them from an identical source, but since they seem, if anything, to have stood in Q, it seems natural to assign these woes of Luke’s, as we have assigned the beatitudes peculiar to Matthew, to the recension used by him. The sympathy shown in the Gospel of Luke for the poor has usually been referred to Luke himself. It may just as well have been a characteristic of one or more of his sources.

THE RECEPTION OF JOHN’S PREACHING

(Lk vii, 29-30)

These two verses are inserted in the midst of Jesus’ testimony to John the Baptist. They have the sound of a purely editorial insertion. On the other hand, if they were found elsewhere by Luke, his insertion of them in this place is accounted for by his desire to explain Jesus’ saying about John. A possible hint of a source is found in the presence of d??a???. This verb is found in three other passages that are peculiar to Luke and that are evidently not from QLk. If not from Luke himself, these verses are from some special source. But they are only what might be expected from Luke himself in the way of editorial comment.

THE SINNER IN SIMON’S HOUSE

(Lk vii, 36-50)

Tho this narrative has considerable resemblance to that in Mk xiv, 3-9, and Mt xxvi, 6-13, the different placing of the story, and the differences in the story itself, far outweighing the resemblances, seem to indicate a special source for it. There is no reason to attribute it, or any saying in it, to Q.

A WOULD-BE FOLLOWER OF JESUS

(Lk ix, 60b-63)

This may either be attributed to Luke (or to some later scribe) as an amplification of the incident just related by both Matthew and Luke from Q, or may be assumed to have stood in Luke’s recension of Q. The two facts, that such amplification would be quite unlike Luke, as his literary habits are revealed to us in his treatment of Mark, and that the saying about the man who has put his hand to the plow has an extremely original and genuine sound, lead us to the latter alternative.

THE RETURN OF THE SEVENTY

(Lk x, 17-20)

Tho the existence and mission of a separate band of seventy disciples be attributed to Luke, he would certainly never have manufactured these sayings that are connected with their return. The sayings may indeed be ascribed to a special source; and are so ascribed by those who allow nothing to Q except the paralleled material. But these sayings are extremely primary in character, especially vss. 18 and 20; and they are similar to much Q material. If in Luke’s recension of Q the mission of the disciples was a mission of seventy instead of twelve, Luke will be relieved of the burden of personal responsibility for the creation of this mission of the seventy; he has then merely conflated the account of the mission of the seventy which he found in his recension of Q with the mission of the twelve which he found in Mark. It must be admitted that such conflation is contrary to Luke’s habit. The alternatives to this hypothesis are, either that he invented the mission of the seventy himself, or that he had before him three accounts of the sending out of disciples, one by Mark and one in Q, and a third in some unknown source. This lends probability to the ascription of these sayings to QLk.

THE GREAT COMMANDMENT

(Lk x, 25-28)

Mark has a partial parallel to this section in Mk xii, 28-31, which Matthew takes from him (Mt xxii, 34-40). Luke’s account is evidently not from Mark, however. Luke may have omitted the Marcan narrative because of this parallel of it in his own Gospel. The logian material in the section is of a primary character; the implication that one might inherit eternal life by merely keeping the commandments is not such as to have been later invented, and sounds particularly strange in Luke’s Gospel. No source is more probable for it than QLk.

THE GOOD SAMARITAN

(Lk x, 29-37)

This parable is entirely too long to be ascribed to any form of Q. Its affinities with others of the long parables peculiar to Luke is such as to indicate for all of them a special source.

MARY AND MARTHA

(Lk x, 38-42)

Mr. Streeter[113] suggests a reason why this incident may have been omitted by Matthew even if it stood in Q. But I can see no reason for assuming it to have stood in the latter source. It has great affinity with much other Lucan material which should not be assigned to Q, and is apparently from a special source.

THE PARABLE OF THE FRIEND ON A JOURNEY

(Lk xi, 5-8)

This parable is brief enough to have stood in Q. But it does not, apparently, relate to the kingdom of God, as the undoubted Q parables do. It is also similar in motive to other Lucan parables assigned to a special source.

THE MOTHER OF JESUS PRAISED

(Lk xi, 27-28)

Wellhausen considers this a variant of Lk viii, 19-21, which latter is taken from Mark (iii, 31-35). The parallelism is not very close, to say the least. While a case may be made out for the occurrence of this section in Q, as is apparently done by Mr. Streeter, it seems better to us to assign it to a special source of Luke’s.

“IF THINE WHOLE BODY IS LIGHT”

(Lk xi, 36)

If this saying were genuine, it would naturally be assigned to QLk. But the text is not well attested, and it is perhaps better to regard it as a gloss.

THE PARABLE OF THE FOOLISH RICH MAN

(Lk xii, 13-21)

Wernle remarks concerning this section that anyone with a sense for Herrenworte will recognize at once that vss. 15 and 21 are from Luke and not from Jesus. Vs. 21 is omitted in some manuscripts. The parable is from a special source.

AN EXHORTATION TO WATCHFULNESS

(Lk xii, 35-38)

This might almost be considered as a variant of Matthew’s parable of the Ten Virgins. It stands in close connection here with Q material. No more probable source can be suggested for it than Luke’s recension of Q.

“TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN”

(Lk xii, 47-48)

This section, consisting entirely of sayings, and occurring between two blocks of Q material, is almost universally ascribed to a special source, simply because it is not paralleled in Matthew. But it is quite homogeneous with Q. It is, indeed, unlikely that Matthew would have omitted it if it had stood in his recension of Q; but no better source can be posited for it than QLk. Of fifteen occurrences of d??? in the New Testament, eight are found in Luke’s Gospel and in Acts. The three occurrences in Acts are not indicative, as they are accounted for by the subject-matter; the five in the Gospel are, except in this passage, paralleled in Matthew and Mark. While the word is therefore in a sense a “Lucan” word, there is nothing to indicate that it was not in the source Luke used.

“I CAME TO CAST FIRE UPON THE EARTH”

(Lk xii, 49-50)

These two verses have a very primary sound. The difficulty of them is much against their invention by Luke or anyone in his time. But if Luke derived them from any written source, they are exactly such sayings as would have found a place in his recension of Q.

THE GALILEANS SLAIN BY HEROD

(Lk xiii, 1-5)

This saying was evidently spoken in Jerusalem, but Luke has placed it during the journey thither. We may perhaps detect here the beginnings of a Jerusalem tradition.

THE PARABLE OF THE FIG TREE

(Lk xiii, 6-9)

Like the preceding, the parable is given as part of the conversation on the Samaritan journey. But it seems to be Luke’s version of the story told by Mark of the cursing of the fig tree; and this latter Mark places in Jerusalem. This may be taken as another hint of the origin of this section in a Jerusalem tradition.

“GO TELL THAT FOX”

(Lk xiii, 31-33)

Mr. Streeter[114] remarks of this section that it is so “un-Lucan in its rough vigor that it is certainly original”; in other words, that it certainly stood in Luke’s source. This source Mr. Streeter maintains is Q, not only for this brief section, but for the solid block of Lk ix, 51-xiii, 59 (with the possible exception of the two parables of the Good Samaritan, the Rich Fool, and perhaps the story of Martha). The passage, xiii, 1-17, he suggests may have been interpolated into Q before Q came to Luke.

The primary character of the section now under consideration cannot be doubted. The fact that Luke has apparently left his Q material by itself, instead of mingling it with his Marcan and other matter, would argue for Mr. Streeter’s position. Yet Luke has not altogether followed this general rule of his; and he has made some very notable transpositions of Marcan material. This saying, also, is not quite like most of the sayings that are by common agreement to be ascribed to Q. It is neither a general rule of conduct, like the sayings in the Sermon on the Mount, nor has it to do with the kingdom of God, like the brief parables of Q. If Luke inserted it from another source, his reason for inserting it in just this place may have been the fact of its closing with the word “Jerusalem.” Yet the lament over Jerusalem which immediately follows is evidently wrongly placed by Luke, in the midst of his Perean journey. We are inclined to assign these verses, tho with some uncertainty, to a special source. The words were apparently spoken neither on the Perean journey (assuming such a journey to have taken place) nor at its close in Jerusalem, but in Galilee.

THE HEALING OF THE DROPSICAL MAN

(Lk xiv, 1-6)

The only saying in this section is that paralleled in Lk xiii, 15-16, and duplicated in Mt xii, 11. The incident is somewhat similar to that recorded in Mk iii, 1-6; and it is noticeable that Matthew, in taking over that incident from Mark, inserts in the midst of it this saying of Jesus about the ox or ass falling into the pit on the Sabbath. If the saying occurred in Q, Matthew has thus taken it out of its original context and made it a part of a Marcan story; but he would hardly have done this if it already, in his copy of Q, constituted part of another and equally good story. In view of the general character of Q as a collection of “sayings,” with as little mixture of incident as possible, it seems better to say that this saying about the ox or ass falling into the pit occurred once in Q, unconnected, and that Luke found it again in the story before us, in some other source.

ABOUT TAKING THE LESS HONORABLE SEATS AT TABLE

(Lk xiv, 7-11)

This saying may have been manufactured upon the basis of Mk xii, 39 (“they love the chief seats at feasts,” etc). Vs. 11 is the oft-repeated formula discussed on p. 182. While this and the following section are not impossible for QLk, it seems better to assign them both to one of Luke’s special sources.

WHOM TO INVITE TO A FEAST

(Lk xiv, 12-14)

This saying of Jesus seems out of place at a dinner to which he had been invited. The saying itself is not unlike Q. Observing that this saying and the two just preceding are placed by Luke at feasts given for Jesus, but that they contain sayings of Jesus either placed elsewhere by Matthew or not given by him at all, Mr. Streeter is inclined to assign the setting of these sayings in each case to Luke, and the sayings to Q. This would seem more justifiable if it were not plain that Luke had, besides his recension of Q and Mark, at least two or three other sources. One cannot be categorical on such a matter, and it is possible that this section with the two preceding should be assigned to QLk.

THE PARABLE OF THE DINNER AND THE INVITED GUESTS

(Lk xiv, 15-24)

This parable is generally regarded as parallel to Mt xxii, 1-10, and the two are assigned to Q. But while the two evangelists are evidently relating the same parable, there is so little verbal resemblance as to give no proof of a common literary source. Upon the assumption of such a source, the violence done to it by Matthew or Luke or both in its transcription is quite beyond belief. If the parable in either Gospel is assigned to Q, the one in the other should be otherwise assigned. It seems better to ascribe both of them to special sources. The two versions are about as unlike as they could well be, and still be versions of the same parable.

CONDITIONS OF DISCIPLESHIP

(Lk xiv, 28-35)

Here are four detached sayings, the first two similar in meaning. Vs. 28 sounds like a genuine logion, with vss. 29 and 30 added as an explanatory comment. The same may be said, respectively, of vss. 31 and 32. Vs. 33, tho beginning with ??t??, does not seem to fit in this place. Vs. 34a is from Mark (ix, 50) or influenced by it. Considering the connections, it is probably best to assign the passage to QLk, with improvements by Luke.

THE LOST SHEEP

(Lk xv, 1-7)

Mr. Streeter suggests that Luke may have elaborated this parable out of the saying in Mt xviii, 12-13. Johannes Weiss, as indicated in his Synoptische Tafeln zu den drei Älteren Evangelien, seems also to consider that while the parable as a whole is drawn from one of Luke’s peculiar sources, there is a literary connection between vss. 4-7 and Matthew’s saying. Considering the connection of the parable with the two that immediately follow, it seems better to assign all three to a common Lucan source.

THE LOST COIN AND THE PRODIGAL SON

(Lk xv, 8-32)

These parables may be assigned without comment to one of Luke’s special sources.

THE UNJUST STEWARD

(Lk xvi, 1-12)

The composite character of this parable has been asserted by various writers. Schmiedel[115] suggests that vss. 10-12 have been added by a later hand. If the parable stops with vs. 9, the meaning of it apparently is that one should give mammon away; the two following verses seem merely to inculcate honesty in business matters. Indeed, perhaps the parable should be considered as ending with vs. 7, and vs. 8 as probably an editorial comment upon it. In the latter case, the ? ?????? of vs. 8 refers to Jesus. This supposition requires the further one that the writer of vs. 9 has forgotten that vs. 8 is indirect discourse attributed to Jesus. Vs. 13 is from Q and is duplicated in Mt vi, 24. But there is no new Q material here.

A CRITICISM OF THE PHARISEES

(Lk xvi, 14-15)

The verses which immediately follow these are from Q. Streeter[116] inclines to assign vss. 14-15 to the same source. But if vss. 16-18 be omitted here and placed in some other connection, vss. 14-15 constitute an excellent introduction to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus which follows in vss. 19-31. In favor of Mr. Streeter’s assignment is the fact that Q was apparently a collection of sayings neither topically nor otherwise arranged, and that the four sayings in vss. 15-18 are thus detached, Matthew having taken the three in vss. 16-18 and “worked them into appropriate contexts.” Of vss. 14 and 15 about all that can be said is that the latter sounds like Q. Considering Matthew’s fondness for everything that reflects upon the Pharisees, it seems likely that if vs. 15 stood in any form of Q it was in Luke’s recension only.

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS

(Lk xvi, 19-31)

This parable seems to show something of the same composite character as is found in that of the Unjust Steward, the first part having to do with rich and poor and the second part with believing and unbelieving. There is no Q material in it.

“UNPROFITABLE SERVANTS” AND THE HEALING OF THE TEN LEPERS

(Lk xvii, 7-10; xvii, 11-19)

The former of these two sections might conceivably have stood in Luke’s recension of Q; the latter not in any recension. It is better to assign them both to a special source.

ABOUT THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD

(Lk xvii, 20-21)

This little section certainly has a Q sound. If it stood in Matthew’s recension, reasons may easily be given for his omission of it; he would not have understood the non-apocalyptic statement, “the kingdom of God is within [or among] you.” But it cannot be proved, at least, that the section stood in Matthew’s Q; therefore if it is assigned to Q at all it would better be assigned merely to Luke’s recension.

Later than this in the Gospel of Luke there is nothing that needs to be examined for possible Q material. His single tradition from here on includes the parables of the Unjust Judge, and the Pharisee and the Publican in the Temple, the story of Zacchaeus, the lament over Jerusalem, the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and a few sections in the story of the trial, the death, and the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Of these only one, the lament over Jerusalem, bears any resemblance to the Q material in general. Professor Burkitt suggests, indeed, that xxii, 15-16, 24-32, and 35-38, may be remnants of Q’s account of the passion. We have seen no reason to suppose that there was such an account in Q. If there was, there are no signs by which it can be identified in this portion of Luke’s narrative. It is better to assign all this material to a special source. The fact that Luke has no resurrection appearances in Galilee may perhaps be taken as confirmation of our hypothesis of a Jerusalem source in his hands.

MATTER PECULIAR TO MATTHEW OR TO LUKE

In the determination of Q material in the single traditions of Matthew and Luke on pp. 166-206, the writer has ventured occasionally to suggest a possible source for such material as is not assigned to any form of Q.

In addition to the sayings-material considered on pp. 166-92, Matthew has in his single tradition the following narratives: the birth and infancy sections, chaps. i, ii; the temple tax, xvii, 24-27; the children in the temple, xxi, 14-16; the death of Judas, xxvii, 3-10; the wife of Pilate, and Pilate and the crowd, xxvii, 19, 24-25; miracles at the death of Jesus, xxvii, 51-53; the watch at the grave, xxvii, 62-66; xxviii, 11-15; the angel rolling away the stone, xxviii, 2-3; the appearances of Jesus to the women, xxviii, 9-10; to the disciples, xxviii, 16-20.

In addition to the sayings and parables of the single tradition of Luke, considered on pp. 193-206, that tradition contains the following narratives: the birth of John the Baptist, the birth and infancy of Jesus, with the ancestry, chaps. i, ii, iii, 1-38; the miraculous draft of fishes, v, 4-9; the raising of the widow’s son, vii, 11-17; the ministering women, viii, 1-3; an event in a Samaritan village, ix, 51-56; the healing of the woman, xiii, 10-17;[117] the ten lepers, xvii, 11-19; Zacchaeus, xix, 2-10; the trial before Herod, xxiii, 6-12; the thief on the cross, xxiii, 39-43; the walk to Emmaus, xxiv, 13-35; the appearances of the risen Jesus, xxiv, 36-53.

Matthew’s peculiar material is scattered thru his entire Gospel. He begins and ends with it. After he reaches the Passion, his peculiar material becomes unusually abundant. In the twenty-three chapters between the infancy and the passion, he has only seventeen insertions of peculiar material. In the three chapters that follow, he has nine. These latter are of a different sort. In the earlier part of his single tradition, sayings and parables predominate; here, except for the saying about the legion of angels, the peculiar material is all narrative.

Luke has likewise distributed his peculiar material thruout his gospel, and also begins and ends with it. But after his stories of the birth and childhood, he has, up to his chap. ix, five insertions of peculiar matter. Four of these are incidents, one is a speech of John the Baptist. With ix, 51, begins his great interpolation. In the less than ten chapters covered by this he has grouped twenty-five sections of his peculiar material. This matter has a prevailing character of its own. There are four narratives in it, three of them being healings. The other twenty-one sections consist of sayings and parables. If we consider the relative length of the sayings, the narratives, and parables of this section, we shall see that the whole is practically a parable section. With the coming of Jesus to Jerusalem, this material stops. From here on Luke has two brief sayings and one longer one, five sections of narrative, and no parable, in his single tradition.

Whether the source of Matthew’s peculiar material was one or more than one, it suggests itself at once that the birth and infancy stories may have come from a place by themselves. They have, to a considerable extent, a vocabulary of their own. Constituting about one twenty-second of the total matter of Matthew’s Gospel, they contain almost one-tenth of the occurrences of the characteristic words of that Gospel.[118] Even if the constantly recurring ?e???? of the genealogy be removed, the peculiar words occur with much more frequency in this birth and infancy section than in the rest of the Gospel. The force of this fact, however, is considerably weakened by the peculiar subject-matter of these chapters.

More decisive upon this matter is the general character of the birth and infancy sections, which is sharply distinguished from that of the body of the Gospel. This is not due to the presence of the marvelous in these early chapters, since that is found to some degree throughout, but to the presence of what may be more distinctly called the legendary element. In this characteristic it is like some of the material at the end of Matthew’s Gospel. Let one compare the general character of the stories of the star and the magi, the slaughter of the innocents, and the flight into Egypt with the story of the opening of the graves and the awakening of the departed dead, and the angel rolling away the stone from the grave, and the question will suggest itself, whether Matthew may not have obtained all these stories from one source.

This suggestion might appear to be seconded by the fact that this material, which has such a striking family resemblance, is not scattered thru the body of Matthew’s work, but occurs, part of it before he has reached his junction with Mark and Luke, and the rest of it after he has parted from them. He not only begins and ends alone, but he begins and ends with material of a remarkably similar character. This is not enough, of course, to prove the unity of Matthew’s source for the first and last parts of his single tradition; but it is enough to suggest it.

As to the source of the rest of Matthew’s peculiar material, we cannot get beyond guesswork. Some of it has an extremely genuine sound; for example, the sayings appended to the Sabbath discussion, “The priests break the sabbath in the temple and are blameless,” etc. (xii, 5-6); the saying about the angels of the little ones (xviii, 10); the parable of the Fish-Net, preserving so well the eschatological features of the preaching of Jesus (xiii, 47-50); the parable of the Two Sons (xxi, 28-31). The incident of the temple tax (xvii, 24-27) seems to go back for its origin to a time when the temple was still in existence, and, when it is relieved of the item of the coin in the fish’s mouth (which may easily be a later addition to the story), seems to bear traces of undoubted genuineness.

The parable of the Laborers who received every man a penny (Mt xx, 1-16) seems likewise to indicate a time considerably later than that of Jesus; a time, namely, when those who had long waited for the parousia were asking whether those who had come in at the eleventh hour were to receive the rewards of the coming kingdom exactly as those who had “borne the burden and the heat of the day.” That it was in such a time as this that Matthew wrote his Gospel may suggest the hypothesis that he has here worked over some genuine saying of Jesus, or received such a saying as it had been worked over by the waiting community, to suit the need of the times.

In much the same manner the story of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (XXV, 1-13) seems to come from a period when the church was commonly spoken of as the bride of Christ, or when Christ was awaited as the coming bridegroom of the church; this is not necessarily later than the times of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, and so may be much earlier than Matthew, but is certainly later than the time of Jesus.

The saying about eunuchs who have made themselves such for the kingdom of heaven has a harsh sound in the mouth of Jesus; and we wonder whether the circumstances of the expectation of the kingdom warranted such a statement at the time Jesus is said to have made it. We cannot but notice also, as Wernle has remarked, that the saying seems to be displaced in Matthew, coming in with extreme inappropriateness between Jesus’ insistence upon the sacredness of marriage and his blessing of the children. It may bespeak the period of developing asceticism within the church. If it is not to be assigned to Jesus we cannot fix very closely the date of its origin.

On the whole, we must probably say that some parts of Matthew’s tradition, outside of his infancy section and the stories of the wonders at the crucifixion, show indications of antiquity and genuineness, while others arouse our suspicions as to their coming from Jesus, or even from Matthew.

MATTER PECULIAR TO LUKE

As to whether the source of Luke’s single tradition was one or many the statement in his prologue predisposes us toward the latter supposition. The difference between the infancy sections and the rest of Luke’s peculiar material, as in the case of Matthew, is marked. Hawkins reckons one hundred and fifty-one words as characteristic of Luke. Of these, seventy-seven, or more than half, occur once or more in the first two chapters, while seventy-four of them are absent from these chapters. These first two chapters contain about one hundred and thirty-two verses, about one-ninth of the whole Gospel; yet one-half of the occurrences of Luke’s peculiar words are found here.

A strong Hebraic character is observable in Luke’s infancy sections, quite absent from his other peculiar material. In the twenty-one verses in i, 5-25, ?a? is used many times where Luke’s habit elsewhere would lead us to expect the substitution of d?. There are also many Hebraic phrases, such as p??e??e??? ?? p?sa?? ta?? ??t??a??, p??e???te? ?? ta?? ???a??, ??a? ???p??? ??????, and the construction ????et?, thrice used, as the formula introducing a paragraph. Luke’s own hand may be seen in the introduction of d? three times. One of these is in connection with e?pe?, which is probably Luke’s substitute for the historic present. The retention of so many Hebraistic and non-Lucan features probably justifies JÜlicher’s suggestion of a special (Hebraistic, Aramaic) written source for these infancy sections. A written and not an oral source is also indicated in Luke’s table of ancestors,[119] especially in its awkward placing after the baptism. It is quite impossible that Luke is here drawing upon the same source as in his great interpolation. Even more decisive in this direction than the vocabulary is the general character of the material.

Sanday is “especially glad to see the stress that is laid [in certain other essays in the same volume] on the homogeneity of the peculiar matter of Luke.”[120] He does not expressly say that he includes here the infancy sections, or whether he refers merely to the great interpolation; in the absence of such a statement, it may be fair to assume the former. He adds, “I fully believe, myself, in its Jewish-Christian and Palestinian origin.” But when he adds further, “I can altogether go along with the view that St. Luke probably collected this material during his two years’ stay at Caesarea (Acts xxiv compared with xxi and xxvii, 1); I could even quite believe with Harnack, Mr. Streeter, and Dr. Bartlet that his chief informants were Philip the evangelist and his four daughters,” he is open to the suspicion of being too much influenced by a desire to trace the tradition back to a definite and authentic source, even where the data do not warrant it. There is certainly no justification for referring the infancy stories to Philip and his four daughters (and perhaps, as suggested above, Dr. Sanday does not mean to do this).

Dr. Sanday further agrees with Dr. Bartlet “that the information derived in this way probably lay before St. Luke in writing. The interval between his stay in Caesarea and the publication of his Gospel could hardly have been less than some fifteen years and I doubt if the freshness, precision, and individual touches which characterize St. Luke could well have been preserved otherwise than by writing.” If Dr. Sanday means that the writing was done by Luke during his stay in Caesarea, from oral tradition given him by Philip and his daughters, we are left with the assumption that Luke kept this written material of his own for fifteen years (probably a good deal longer) before he incorporated it in his Gospel. This would agree well with the theory that Luke, as the traveling companion of Paul, kept a diary of events, which he preserved for a still longer period, until he finally incorporated it in his Book of Acts. Both these assumptions are strange upon the face of them; and for those who do not accept the same authorship for the “we sections” and the rest of Acts (as the present writer does not), and who also think the Gospel of Luke was not written till considerably more than fifteen years from the time of Luke’s stay in Caesarea, and who do not identify the author of the Third Gospel with the traveling companion of Paul, Dr. Sanday’s statement will not appear conclusive.

Outside of Luke’s infancy sections (and the passion sections which will be considered in a succeeding paragraph) there is an apparent homogeneity in much of Luke’s single tradition. Luke and Matthew start out in their attempt to tell the gospel story, each on his own independent line. They come together at the point where Mark has begun his story. Except for a few insertions and transpositions they stay together and with Mark up to Lk ix, 51. Here Luke inserts something more than nine chapters before he gets back again to Matthew and Mark.

In these more than nine chapters there are some sections which Matthew has in the earlier part of his Gospel, and little which Mark has;[121] but in these nine chapters Luke inserts most of the material peculiar to himself, and by far the greater part of the nine chapters is made up exclusively of such material. From the end of Luke’s infancy section to his great interpolation there are about one hundred and fourteen verses of exclusively Lucan material, but in this interpolation there are about one hundred and seventy verses. The suggestion of these facts, to the effect that Luke is here employing a source distinct from that which he has used in his infancy section, and that he is for the most part employing one source and not several, may be further favored by the fact that when he comes back to the story told in Mark (and Matthew) he takes that up, not where he left it, at Mk vi, 41, but at viii, 27; as if he had found it inconvenient to make his peculiar source here work in with the common tradition.[122]

DID LUKE’S GREAT INTERPOLATION ORIGINALLY EXIST AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENTARY SOURCE?

The material of Luke’s “great interpolation,” after the comparatively small amount of matter common to Luke and Matthew is subtracted from it, has a decided homogeneity of its own. It consists of nine sayings, one incident (the occurrence in the Samaritan village) which might with almost equal propriety be reckoned as a saying, three healings, all of which have the appearance of being introduced, not for the sake of the cure, but of the appended saying, and thirteen parables.

These thirteen parables have not only a striking similarity among themselves, but an equally striking dissimilarity to those parables which Luke has in common with one or both of the other evangelists. Matthew’s parables are usually brief sayings, beginning with the phrase, “The kingdom of heaven is like,” etc. The parables peculiar to Luke (there are fourteen in all and thirteen of them occur in this section) are stories rather than parables in the strict sense. Some of them are introduced by the brief formula, “And he said unto them,” or “And he said to his disciples,” etc. Others are given a more definite setting, like the story of the Good Samaritan, which is introduced as an answer to the question “Who is my neighbor?” However introduced, they usually contain a more or less elaborated conclusion, easily distinguished from the parable proper. Thus in the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asks the lawyer which of the three men he considers to have been neighbor to him who fell among the thieves. The lawyer makes his reply, and upon the basis of it Jesus dismisses him with a word of pointed advice. In the same manner the story of the Rich Fool is introduced as a rebuke to the man who asks Jesus to help him secure his portion of an estate, and closes with the reflection that whoever has the riches of this world but is not “rich toward God” is like this man. So the stories of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin are introduced with the statement that the Pharisees objected to Jesus’ eating with “sinners,” and close with the statement, “Likewise there is joy in the presence of the angels of God,”[123] etc.

At least one or two of these parables seem to be provided with more than one conclusion. The story of the Unjust Judge (xviii, 1-8) is introduced in vs. 1 as being spoken concerning the necessity of continued prayer. The story or parable itself then follows in vss. 2-5. Vss. 6-8a give the conclusion in the words of Jesus, beginning with the words, “And the Lord said.” Then Luke himself, in vs. 8b, adds, “But, when the Son of man cometh will he find the faith in the earth?”[124] The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is introduced as a rebuke to the Pharisees (Lk xvi, 14-15), who loved riches and thot well of themselves. The parable as thus introduced and as answering to this purpose appropriately closes at vs. 25, where Abraham reminds the rich man that he had his good things and Lazarus his poverty upon the earth, but now their situations are reversed.[125] What follows in vss. 27-31, tho here given as a continuation of the same story, has nothing to do with the contrast between rich and poor, or with heartlessness and pity, but only with belief and unbelief.

It may be observed also that the insertion of here and there a few verses that are elsewhere paralleled in Matthew interrupts the otherwise good connection of Luke’s peculiar account. Thus the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is introduced, as just remarked, as a rebuke to the Pharisees, who loved money and “justified themselves in the sight of men.” If it were allowed to follow immediately upon this, the setting would be appropriate. But between this introduction, which is peculiar to Luke, and the story itself, also peculiar to him, there are inserted three verses (xvi, 16-18) in regard to law and divorce, which quite break the connection. These interrupting verses, however, are not peculiar to Luke, but are found in Matthew also.When all these facts are taken into account it is not surprising that the hypothesis has risen that the great interpolation, exclusive of the Q material contained in it, came from a special source.

But the unity of this source is much harder to demonstrate than is the unity of Q. A considerable amount of the material, aside from the Q material, in these sections is more or less closely duplicated by Matthew, and the Perean source or its equivalent in parts must therefore have been used by him also. Matthew’s demonstrated faithfulness to his sources raises serious doubt as to whether he could have known this Perean source and have omitted so much of it. The assumption that he did so, and the assignment of the double tradition thruout this portion of Luke, would require also an entire rearrangement of Q. Burton accepts this requirement, and, instead of Q, goes back to the Logia as a special source of Matthew. The fact that some of this material in the so-called Perean section of Luke may easily be assigned to his own invention, and that in the larger part of it where he is not duplicated by Matthew his own hand can be clearly seen in additions and rearrangements, would seem to tell against the unity of the Perean source, or against the assumption of any Perean source properly so called, and common to Matthew and Luke. On the whole the hypothesis of a Perean source does not seem to the writer to have been substantiated.

OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCES FOR MATERIAL PECULIAR TO LUKE

Suggestion has been made in connection with a few of the passages considered on pp. 193-206 as to a possible Jerusalem source. Nothing can perhaps be said in support of such a hypothesis, except what is suggested in the analysis on those pages and lies upon the surface of the passages. Another possible clew to the determination of one of Luke’s sources lies in the material that has to do particularly with women. Compare the raising of the widow’s son and the speech of Jesus referring to the Old Testament widow; the ministering women, Mary and Martha, and the speech of the woman about the mother of Jesus. The writer does not consider this (or the preceding) to be anything more than a suggestion.

CONCLUSIONS REGARDING Q MATERIAL IN THE SINGLE TRADITIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE

The preceding investigations represent the recension of Q used by Matthew as containing about two hundred and sixty-seven verses, or parts of verses. Of these ninety-eight are so closely parallel to Luke as to be marked simply Q. Eighty-nine, paralleled in Luke, but with divergences such as to indicate a different wording in the source that lay before Matthew and Luke and eighty without any parallels in Luke, are assigned to QMt. The recension of Q used by Luke, according to our analysis, contained about two hundred and thirty-eight verses or parts of verses. Of these, ninety-four are closely enough paralleled in Matthew to be assigned simply to Q; eighty-one are paralleled in Matthew, but with such differences as to suggest different wording in the source; and sixty-three are peculiar to Luke.

It is not to be assumed that all of Q is reproduced in either Matthew or Luke. But from the treatment accorded to Mark by Matthew and Luke, respectively, it is to be expected that Matthew would omit less of the Q material that lay before him than would Luke; and this presumption is confirmed by the results obtained. The examination of Luke’s material indicates his command of a larger number of sources aside from Mark and Q than are apparent in Matthew, and this again agrees with Luke’s statement in his preface. Luke’s Gospel is longer than Matthew’s, and approaches the limit apparently convenient in ancient documents.[126] This fact, together with the greater amount of material he wished to incorporate from other sources, would further account for Luke’s greater omissions from his Q. Yet there is nothing to prove that Luke’s Q, as it was certainly different in some of its contents, was not also briefer than Matthew’s.

It is possible to limit Q strictly to the sections of Matthew and Luke in which the correspondences are extremely close, to leave the remainder of their double tradition to unidentified sources, and to make no claims for Q (QMt and QLk) in the single traditions of Matthew and Luke. This indeed is the procedure of most scholars. But it has the disadvantages of ignoring much material in the single traditions which is extremely similar to the Q material and often stands, in one or both Gospels, in closest connection with it, and of leaving without explanation the material which is nearly enough alike to require some common basis but not near enough alike to indicate the use of the same recension of the same document. The assumption of QMt and QLk, going back to two different translations, from different copies of the Aramaic original, and undergoing the process of alteration and accretion in different surroundings before falling into the hands of Matthew and Luke, best accounts for the agreements, the divergences, and the peculiar but strongly similar material.Thus far we may claim that the facts of two hundred and sixty-seven verses in one source against two hundred and thirty-eight in the other, ninety-eight in one extremely close in wording (with many verses absolutely identical) to ninety-four in the other, and eighty verses in one against sixty-three in the other, unduplicated, but strongly suggesting by form and content their relationship with the rest, do not throw any discredit upon the assumption of two recensions (translations) of one document, but are what would be expected. If the date for the original Q is to be set as early as the year 60, or even earlier, and its use by Matthew and Luke be put as late as 85 to 95, the divergences between Matthew’s and Luke’s recensions will be further justified.