Luke’s amissions. 796 Eliis ; and in each case the object is apparent. Only a close inspection of a harmony of the Gospels will make GOSPELS [sr1'orric.-tL. narrative of the fig-tree rather as a parable than as a fact. But it is important to bear in mind that we have little this clear; but three or four passages Inay be mentioned _ more than the evidence of conjecture to explain some which point in this direction. Luke has already (i. 17) declared that John will go before Jesus “in the spirit and power” of Elias, but he cautiously avoids committing himself to the tradition (.Ik. ix. 13; Mat. xvii. 13) that John was Elias. The belief in an actual transmigration of souls he will allow the multitude to entertain (ix. 8, 19), but not Herod: for whereas in Mark (vi. 16) Herod says, “ Whom I beheaded, viz., John, this man (ofiros, corr. text), is risen from the dead,” Luke, by a slight transposition of the traditional words, converts the proposition into a ques- tion: “John I beheaded; but who is this man?” And, further, in order to prepare the way for the interview between Herod and the Lord—which he purposes to de- scribe at the end of his Gospel (xxiii. 8, 9), and to refer to in his continuation of the Gospel (Acts iv. ‘.27)—he adds the words, “And he (Herod) was desirous to see Him.” Again Mark (ix. 6) tells us that Peter “not knowing what to answer,” proposed to build three tabernacles for Jesus, Moses, and Elias; but Luke reads (ix. 33), “not knowing what he said,” as if to caution the reader against supposing that Elias or Moses could be seriously placed on the same level as Jesus. For the same reason he omits the irreverent misunderstanding of the bystander who supposed that Jesus in his last moments called for Elias, and even the utterance itself (Mat. xxvii. 49 ; Mk. xv. 36). With reference to many of the other omissions it will be noticed that Luke seems to have before him somewhat different versions of the narratives, which different ver- sions he inserts elsewhere. For example, he gives a version of the calling of the apostle-fishermen, which adds a miraculous draught of fishes, thereby approximat- ing to the narrative in the Fourth Gospel (xxi. 6-11). Again Luke places the murmuring of the N azarenes much earlier, in the fore-front of the ministry of Jesus, as was very natural, and gives an entirely different version of it. The ministry of the angels after the temptation he omits; but he alone records the ministry of the angel (xxii. 43) when Jesus was tempted in Gethsemane, for which tempta- tion he carefully prepares the way by saying (iv. 13) that the devil departed from Jesus only “for a season.” As regards the anointing “for the burial,” it is probable we have a different version of it in his story of the woman that was “a sinner” (vii. 37). The reasons for the omission of the feeding of the four thousand and the withering of the fig-tree are not so obvious. The omission could hardly have been dictated by any desire to minimize the supernatural (seeing that Luke contains many miracles peculiar to himself, and that he does not shrink from giving in full detail the exorcism of the Gadarene). It is possible that he omitted the former as being too similar to the feeding of the five thousand to require to be repeated; and if he regarded it (as the author of the Fourth Gospel does) as having a sacramental meaning, one story of the kind may have seemed sufficient. If the story of the withered fig-tree was regarded by him in the same way (rather as emblematic than as historical), then it may have been replaced in his narrative by the story of the barren fig-tree (peculiar to Luke), to which the master came seeking fruit and finding none. It is also noticeable that the moral (on the power of faith) deduced from the withering of the fig tree in Matthew and Mark is contained in Luke, but in a different form. In Matthew and Mark it runs: “If ye say to this moun- tain, Be raised up and cast into the sea;” whereas in Luke (xvii. 6) it is, “Ye might have said to this sg/ramine tree, Be rooted up and planted in the sea.” This perhaps slightly confirms the supposition that Luke regarded the of Luke’s omissions. For example, the story of the walking on the waves, as told by Matthew and llnrl<, represents the disciples as being alarmed by the thought that the apparition of the Lord was only a spirit (¢ofv1-acr)ua); unless Luke considered that the ground of this narrative was occupied by his account of a similar fear when the disciples beheld the Lord after the resur- rection, it is hard to suggest any reason for its omission. This class of omissions may be terminated with that numbered (19) above——the compact of Judas concerning the signal. It is obvious here that Luke has another version of the tradition in his mind. Ile alone of the three records the words of Jesus, “ Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss,” thereby making it unnecessary to explain (with Matthew and Mark) that the kiss was -.1 signal fixed by the traitor. Another class of passages may possibly have been omitted as being not of interest to the Gentile world, or as being liable to misunderstanding or perversion. The story of the Syro-Pho;-nician woman perhaps appeared to the editor of the Gentile Gospel to exhibit Jesus in too harsh a light ; the application to Jesus of -the prophecy “I will smite the Shepherd,” appeared 111ore liable to misunderstanding than “He was reckoned with trans- gressors” (not found in Mark’s genuine text); the discus- sion of the law of divorce and of the regulations touching uncleanuess, and the part played by Ilerodias in the exe- cution of the Baptist, may have seemed to lack interest for readers outside Palestine. In the discourse on the second coming it would be natural for an editor of the tradition writing after the siege of Jerusalem to sub- stitute “encircled by armies” for the “abomination of desolation ”———a phrase that would perplcx a Gentile reader, and also to modify some of the hyperbolic and emblematic expressions. Lastly, the mention of the “false witness" concerning the destruction of the temple, and the raising up of a new temple in three days, may have begun to present a difliculty in times when the temple actually had been destroyed, and when the Lord Jesus Himself had come to be regarded as the new temple not made with hands. Although therefore Luke does not go so far as the author of the Fourth Gospel (who exhibits Jesus as actually predicting the destruction of the temple and as promising to raise it up in three days), yet he not only omits the “false witness,” but also the allusion to it contained in the taunts addressed to Jesus on the cross, “Thou that destroyest the temple and raisest it again in three days, save Thyself” (.lat. xxvii. 40 ; Mk. xv. 29). The above explanation of Luke's omissions may only partially commend itself to the reader ; but few will fail to see that there is at least some method and motive in most of them. It is a matter of certainty that in the Triple Tradition many of Luke’s omissions and modifica- tions of phrases and words are not accidental but editorial : it is but natural therefore to suppose (especially when reasons can easily be assigned) that editorial reasons may also explain omissions and modifications of narratives and discourses. Of course it is not maintained that Luke, or any individual editor, made these changes on his own responsibility. Many of them are probably the result of a “ Gentile use” which had gradually sprung up in certain churches, and which was not created but adopted and expressed by the author of the Third Gospel. Consequently we are not obliged to suppose that the omissions resulted from ignorance. The very fact that it is easy to supply motives and reasons for the omission of these narratives
increases their credibility, by diminishing the probability