Footnotes:

[1] Mohr, TÜbingen, 1906, 3d ed. A fourth edition of this valuable book appeared in 1911, but without important changes.

[2] Cf. Sanders, Journal of Biblical Literature, XXXII, 184 ff., for evidence that this did not stand in the original text of Luke.

[3] This statement may be questioned, as Lk xiii, 18-19 may be considered parallel to Mk iv, 30-32. At all events Matthew has the passage with Mark. The matter is complicated by the fact that the parable apparently stood in both Mark and Q.

[4] Tho Lk xiv, 34a is apparently taken from Mk ix, 50a, as against Mt v, 13a.

[5] For discussion of Luke’s non-use of Mark thruout the Great Interpolation, see pp. 16-18; for an elaborate analysis of the sources of the section, see Hawkins, Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 29-59.

[6] see Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 139-41, for other instances.

[7] For an elaborate analysis of the sources of the material in the Great Interpolation, see Hawkins, Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 29-59.

[8] An apparent exception is Lk xiv, 34 = Mk ix, 50; no parallel in Matthew. Lk xvii, 2 = Mk ix, 42, and Lk x, 27 = Mk xii, 30 should perhaps be added, but are not so clear.

[9] Chapter and verse for each of these sections being given in the tabulated arrangement of this same material on pp. 24-27, only such references are given here as are necessary to help the reader to follow the analysis at this point.

[10] We do not include here the omission of single words or phrases, or even occasionally of an entire verse, where it is plain that this is in the interest of some change or condensation.

[11] See especially the parable of the Weed in the Field (Mt xiii, 24-30), the Mustard Seed (Mk iv, 30-32; Mt xiii, 31-32; Lk xiii, 18-19), the Sower (Mt xiii, 1-9; Lk viii, 4-8).

[12] Wernle, Synoptische Frage, p. 126.

[13] Thruout this discussion I am greatly indebted to Wernle, as anyone must be who has read his Synoptische Frage.

[14] Wernle includes among these the defense of Jesus in Mk iii, 23-30, practically duplicated in Lk xi, 17-23. Why not a transposition, rather than an omission? So considered here.

[15] Wernle, op. cit., p. 5.

[16] Yet not always. Cf. his two bands of teachers, his healing of ten lepers and of one, his two disputes about priority among the disciples, his three predictions of the passion and two of the resurrection. But cf. his omission of anointing at Bethany, the barren fig tree, the mocking by Pilate’s soldiers, because of their duplications of his material already used. See Hawkins, op. cit., 69.

[17] Matthew takes no offense at this; for he even adds to it, “I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

[18] Hawkins, op. cit., p. 71. It seems strange that Hawkins’ discussion of the “great omission” contains no reference to Wernle’s treatment of the same subject.

[19] Wernle, op. cit., p. 6.

[20] On the size of ancient books, see Sanday, Oxford Studies, pp. 25-26; cf. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen.

[21] For complete and detailed discussion, see Wernle, Wellhausen, Harnack.

[22] See pp. 95-96, where the account of the call of the first disciples is further discussed, and printed in heavy-faced type.

[23] P. 30; see also pp. 95-96, where the account of the calling of the first disciples is printed in heavy-faced type and is further discussed.

[24] This latter is not the usual word for “bed,” but means a little bed—some sort of bed.

[25] Agreement of Matthew and Luke in these two corrections is held to show Urmarkus. The need of correction is obvious enough, and the corrections are the natural ones to make. So also Sinaiticus in Mark, with other authorities.

[26] Some MSS omit this reference in Mark.

[27] P. 21.

[28] See Lk iii, 21; ix, 18, 28, 29; xi, 1.

[29] See pp. 153, 238-39.

[30] Das Älteste Evangelium, p. 165.

[31] For further discussion of this and the preceding section see pp. 239-40.

[32] P. 19.

[33] Huck’s Synopse, pp. 80 and 109, will show the verses belonging respectively to the two sources.

[34] It is argued later, pp. 234-48, that Mark also is dependent upon Q, but since he has the Q material in much briefer and more fragmentary form than Matthew and Luke, his use of Q does not preclude Matthew’s and Luke’s preservation of more primary features of the Q tradition.

[35] Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 59.

[36] For further discussion see p. 241.

[37] Horae Synopticae, p. 123.

[38] A note on this passage by Professor H. A. Sanders says that this is Mark’s order in B D (k d c) only.

[39] Cf. a similar omission of the address to the waves, p. 48.

[40] See Bartlet, “Sources of St. Luke’s Gospel,” Oxford Studies, p. 321.

[41] I am unable to account for Matthew’s addition that Jesus touched the man’s eyes.

[42] See p. 244 for further discussion of the saying as in Mark and Q.

[43] No reason can be given, so far as I know, for Luke’s addition of his xx, 18. Some texts ascribe the same saying to Matthew also.

[44] I think I owe this suggestion to Wernle, but do not find the passage in his Synoptische Frage.

[45] Bacon explains this saying of Mark’s to mean that Jahwe is not a god of the underworld, like Pluto (Beginnings of Gospel Story).

[46] Luke (xvii, 34) wishes to suggest that the parousia may occur in the night.

[47] Horae Synopticae, p. 120.

[48] See his study, from which these statements are abridged, in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 76-77.

[49] The fact that Matthew agrees much more closely with Mark, in those sections which are omitted by Luke, is a somewhat curious one, for which I have seen no sufficient explanation offered. A possible explanation might be that in these sections no opportunity was offered to later copyists to assimilate the texts of Matthew and Luke, and thus introduce further changes from Mark. If the extent of such assimilation could be proved to be great enough, this explanation would perhaps be sufficient.

[50] See Goodspeed on “The Original Conclusion of Mark’s Gospel,” in American Journal of Theology, Vol. IX (1905), pp. 484-90; also, RÖrdam, Hibbert Journal, Vol. III, pp. 769-90, “What Was the Lost End of the Gospel of Mark?”

[51] See Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 56; Loisy, Gospel and Church, p. 29.

[52] This study of von Soden’s and Wendling’s treatment of Mark appeared in the Harvard Theological Review for April, 1913.

[53] P. 23.

[54] P. 24.

[55] For reasons which he does not explain, he rearranges the sections.

[56] Von Soden, Die wichtigsten Fragen, pp. 38, 39.

[57] Ibid., pp. 39, 40.

[58] And still more in his Entstehung, too elaborate to be here considered.

[59] Cf. especially the words ?st?????, et? ?a??? ?a??e??, d?????, ?p????a?, ?a?p?f??e??, and see Wendling, p. 35, n. 11.

[60] Cf. ii, 20, also the work of the redactor.

[61] Cf. especially v, 2 with i, 23; v, 6, 7, with i, 24; v, 8-13, with i, 25; v, 13, with i, 26; v, 14-17, with i, 27, and see Wendling, p. 11.

[62] In Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums, p. 204, Wendling arranges the verses from M1 in chaps. xiii and xiv as follows: xiii, 1-2, 33, 28-29, 34-36; xiv, 1-2, 10-11, 3-7, 22-25, 43-46, 48-50, 65. Some minor differences in analysis, affecting words or clauses, are registered ibid., p. 237.

[63] Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 12-13.

[64] See Hawkins, pp. 144-48.

[65] The seventy-eight does not include parables, where the present is not historic.

[66] See Sanday’s essay, in Oxford Studies, pp. 21-22.

[67] Turner, Theological Studies, January, 1909, p. 175, quoted by Sanday.

[68] See Hawkins, Oxford Studies, pp. 64-66.

[69] Both genealogies may easily be suspected of being later additions. If Luke’s genealogy is a gloss there is no apparent reason why it should not have been inserted in the appropriate place; cf. Sanders, Journal of Biblical Literature, XXX, 11.

[70] E.g., the verses on Peter and the keys, or on Peter walking on the water, or the conversation of Jesus with John the Baptist at the time of Jesus’ baptism.

[71] In the Hibbert Journal, No. 39, April, 1912, pp. 615-25.

[72] This passage has been already treated in a different connection on p. 39.

[73] Omitted in some manuscripts of Mark.

[74] vii, 28; xi, 1; xiii, 53; xix, 1; xxvi, 1.

[75] Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 165.

[76] Wernle, p. 110.

[77] Luke uses it twenty-four times against Matthew’s seven and Mark’s four.

[78] P. 617.

[79] Mk xiv, 54.

[80] In xiv, 66.

[81] P. 617.

[82] Lk xxii, 54.

[83] See his note, p. 618.

[84] P. 621. This judgment upon Luke is in striking contrast to that expressed by MÜller, Zur Synopse, p. 3: “Wellhausen calls Luke a “historian.” This judgment rests on excellent grounds. We see this at once in the manner in which Luke has used the text-scaffolding of Mark. Logical, simple, and transparent considerations have moved him,” etc. MÜller’s judgment is decidedly the better.

[85] P. 625.

[86] In his Gospel History and Its Transmission, and Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus.

[87] E.g., Stanton: see his Gospels as Historical Documents, Part II; and Robinson: see his Study of the Gospels.

[88] Cf. especially the prediction of sufferings connected with the confession of Peter (Mt xvi, 13-23); the speech about Elijah, connected with the transfiguration (Mt xvii, 9-13); the speech about true greatness, connected with the request of the sons of Zebedee (Mt xx, 20-28).

[89] Oxford Studies, p. xxii.

[90] Hawkins’ list comes from his Horae Synopticae. In his essay in Oxford Studies he assigns a considerably larger content to Q.

[91] Einleitung, pp. 16-18.

[92] Effort will be made later to determine the extent of QMt and QLk by themselves.

[93] The writer began the following examination with the intention of assigning to Q only, and rejecting all passages not showing sufficient agreement to warrant such assignment. He found this task so difficult, involving the rejection of so many passages which did not apparently belong to Q but which nevertheless showed unmistakable signs of literary relation, that he adopted the theory (suggested but not worked out in the introduction to Bacon’s Beginnings of Gospel Story) of QMt and QLk.

[94] See Wellhausen’s Einleitung, p. 36, and pp. 124-25 of this book.

[95] Das Älteste Evangelium, p. 175.

[96] Encyclopaedia Biblica, col. 1864.

[97] See also pp. 124-25.

[98] See the treatment of this passage on p. 124.

[99] See his Sayings of Jesus, pp. 30-31.

[100] Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 109.

[101] Sayings of Jesus, p. 52.

[102] Oxford Studies, p. 133.

[103] Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. II, col. 1864.

[104] P. 78.

[105] ???fa?? is in vs. 18 substituted for ???pt? used in 4 and 6.

[106] Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 149.

[107] Pp. 40-42.

[108] Schriften des Neuen Testaments, I, 324.

[109] The Synoptic Gospels, I, 608.

[110] Quoted by Montefiore, I, 610.

[111] Sometimes counted as only seven, the similitude in vs. 52 not being reckoned as a parable.

[112] So regarded, apparently, by J. Weiss in his Schriften des Neuen Testaments, I, 342.

[113] Oxford Studies, p. 192.

[114] Oxford Studies, p. 193.

[115] Encyclopedia Biblica, col. 1864.

[116] Oxford Studies, p. 201.

[117] The healing of a dropsical man (Lk xiv, 1-6), tho a narrative section, has been considered on p. 201, on account of the sayings in it.

[118] Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 9.

[119] Unless this should be regarded as a gloss, which would not so well account for its awkward position. See Sanders, Journal of Biblical Literature, October, 1913.

[120] Oxford Studies, Introductory Essay, pp. xx-xxi.

[121] See pp. 8-9, 16-18.

[122] Holtzmann’s suggestion that Luke omitted the Mark section because it ends with the second feeding of the multitude—implying the same sort of omission by mistake as is often made when two lines end with the same word—seems strangely insufficient.

[123] Why does Luke have two laments over Jerusalem, as well as two missions of the disciples, especially considering his apparent avoidance of duplicates?

[124] This last, quite inappropriate alike in the mouth of Jesus and as a part of his parable, becomes, in the mouth of Luke, a pathetic commentary upon the difficulty of preserving the Christian faith while waiting for the long-delayed parousia.

[125] The soliloquy in the parables of Jesus is introduced by Luke alone. The dialogue, tho more frequent in Luke than in Matthew, is not restricted to him.

[126] Sanday, Oxford Studies, pp. 25-26.

[127] Pp. 129-206.

[128] So Wendling. Stanton also says Mark’s connection is better with Mk vi, 45-vii, 23, omitted.

[129] It should be said that most of those who argue for Luke’s omission of so much Q material assign these sixteen sections to some special source of Luke’s.

[130] See especially Matthew’s “Go not into any way of the gentiles,” which might be assigned to Q, with obvious reasons for Luke’s omission.

[131] Pp. 222-25.

[132] See analyses on pp. 230-33.

[133] Pp. 222-35.

[134] See the reckoning made without inclusion of Marcan Q on pp. 162, 218.

[135] Still according to Harnack.

[136] Oxford Studies, p. 146.

[137] See pp. 234-46 for material in Mark and Q.

[138] A note by Professor Sanders says, quite correctly, that “The general agreement in translation words requires that one of these translations should have preceeded and influenced the other.”