INTERNAL EvIDENcE.] that they were late traditions unknown to the author of the Third Gospel. The passages omitted are generally in the style of the conm1o11 tradition, and they contain incidents of a similar kind to the incidents of the common tradition. It only remains to add that (except in the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman, and, in a lesser degree, in the question of the lawyer about the great commandment) Matthew and Mark closely agree whenever Luke separates himself from them. This is also found frequently to be the casein the Triple Tradition.1 In the midst of very similar context, if Mark is identical, or nearly so, with Matthew, in the expression of some action, it will be found that Luke often suddenly diverges, or makes some omission. Tl1us— (1) Mat. xxi. 1'2. Kai elo'T)A0eV ’I-qo‘o17s eis 'riz iepiw Kai e’§e'Ba}e 1ra'.1/‘ras ‘rails 1rw) i7i/'ras Kai a'yopoi_(ui/‘ray £11 753 iepgfi, Kai 1 as ’rpa1re'§as -rdyu koA)vBio'1'cT.-V xaréarpexlze, Kai ras‘ rca9é5pas 'rd3u 1rwAu15u1'wV ras 1repm"repois‘. (2) 1Il(. xi. 15. Kai eio'e}c‘uu sis 'ri; iepdu, fipgaro 6'xBoiAAetV Tui/S‘ 1rw}o17i/‘ray Kai ‘rails ayopoigioi/‘ray e’u 1-(,3 iepg3' rcai ras 'rpa1re'§as ‘rim ko)vBLo'1'cT>u, Kai -ras Ka9e'5pas 765v 1rwAo15u'rwu 'ras 1r£pLo"repa$ rca'r'e'o"rpel/e. (3) 1.11. xix. 45. Kai eio'eA9c‘ou sis 'riz iepdu, fipgaro e’uBoi)A6w robs 1rw)oi}u'ras‘, omitting the rest. So, in the midst of the story of the rich young man, where Matthew and Mark have (imam. ).'7T0‘Ll[/.61/09, ijv yap Exam K-njpa-ra 72-o))u£, Luke, suddenly diverging, has 7repL’}v7ros* e’~/61/fiery‘ 7]!» ‘yap 7r}oL'vo'Lo9 o'¢o(i3pa (Mk. X. 223 ; Mat-. xix. 22; L11. xviii. 23). Sometimes the divergence appears to arise from literary motives, and especially from the dislike of repetition (Ln. iv. 3'.’ ; Mat. vii. 29; Mk. i. 22) ; but in other cases it cannot be so explained :—Lu. v. 29, 30; Mat. ix. 10, 11 ; Mk. ii. 15, 16: Lu. v. 33, 34; Mat. ix. 14, 1:3 ; .Ik. ii. 18, 19 (see also, in a parable, Lu. v. 36; Mat. ix. 16; Mk. ii. '21): Lu. vi. 11; Mat. xii. 14; Mk. iii. 6: Lu. viii. 13; Mat. xiii. 21; Mk. iv. 17: Lu. viii. 44; Mat. ix. 21; Mk. v. 29. In some of these cases the agreement between Matthew and Mark is so close as to suggest that both writers may have used some common document (not oral tradition) which con- tained little more than certain words of the Lord in a scanty framework of narrative. But this common matter adds little to our knowledge of Christ. The most import- GOSPELS 797 henceforth nothing in common with Mark, except what is found in the Triple Tradition. Most of the incidents common to Mark and Luke are so few and so simple that their omission by Matthew requires no explanation. It is possible that the names J air11s and Legion did not exist in the earliest tradition, as it pre- sented itself to Matthew; the “authority” which Mark illustrates (compare i. 2'2 with i. 27) by exorcism, Matthew applies (and perhaps justly) rather to our Lord’s method of teaching (vii. 28, 29) ; but it is difficult to suppose that any other cause than ignorance could have caused the omission of the saying of Jesus concerning the widow’s mite. It is certain that, in some at least of these passages, Mark represents the earlier, and Luke a modified tradition. L11ke (see below, p. 806), writing with a literary purpose, has softened many early irregularities, which in Mark retain their original harshness. For example, the ungrammatical oi Ka-re'cr0ov-res (Mk. xii. 40) is altered (Tiscliendorf and Tregelles, pace Lachmann) into o‘i :<arecr0i'ovcn (1.11. xx. 47) ; and-instead of 0e)v-run» before do-racrpoeg (Mk. xii. 38) Luke inserts qbL)()L,'VTu)v (Lu. xx. 46). In the story of the widow also, Luke, disapproving of the epithet “beggar” (12-ruixfi) applied to the poor widow, substitutes the more respectable vrevtxpd, yet with a natural b11t inconsistent reverence declines to cancel the same epithet (-rr-rwxfi) when (Lu. xxi. 3) it occurs in the words of the Lord. The rarer and less correct (ambiguous also when followed by the feminine at’)-rfis) fvcr-repwficrews (Mk. xii. 44) is altered into fro-'rep1},u.a-res (Lu. xxi. 4); and, lastly, the lengthy duality of Mark, “as many things as she had; all her livelihood” (which looks as if it had arisen from com- bining two rlitl'erent renderings of the same Aramaic original), is condensed by Luke (who takes one part of one rendering, and another part of the other) into “all the livelihood that she had.” It is probable that not only in these but in all passages common to Mark and Luke alone, wherever Mark and Luke differ, Mark represents an earlier, and Luke a later version of the original. And generally it may be said that Luke follows the tradition of Mark most faithfully when it deals with Galilee, and least when it deals with Jerusalem. .l¢l<litions common to Jllatt/Lew and L217re.—These in- Additions ant narrative in it is the story of the Syro-Phoenician, showing how Jesus, as it were, acknowledged in the woman'spersistent faith a divine revelation, extending His troduce an altogether new element into the tradition. COINIHOII Hitherto the Triple Tradition of Matthew, Mark, and Luke t° Mat‘ (as well as the double tradition of Matthew and Mark, tI],$1:,_a“1 -lditions ' Mark id Luke. gospel even to the heathen. And this narrative is written in language so divergent as to indicate not a document but an oral tradition. The .lvI¢l[tion.s of Jfar/.' and L-2¢l'e.—Additions of any length are very few :— (1) An exorcism of an um-lean spirit (Mk. i. 21-25; Lu. iv. 31-35) ; (2) the account of Jesus retiring to a solitary place, when lie. declares that 1Ie must carry the gospel elsewhere (Mk. i. 35-39 ; Lu. iv. 42-44); (3) the saying of John the son of Zebedee, “Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and we forb-vle him,” and the reply of Jesus (.Ik. ix. 38-40; Lu. ix. 49, :70) ; (4) the short denunciation of the Pharisees that devour wid->ws' houses (Mk. xii. 38-40; Lu. xx. 46, 47); (5) the story of the wi«low’s mite (Mk. xii. 41-44; L11. xxi. 1-4). Shorter similarities are—(6) a mention of Jesus as being in retirement (Mk. i. 43; L11. v. 16); and (7) a mention of “Tyre and Sidon” as pl-.1-ms to which the fame ofJesus had spread (Mk. iii. 8 ; Lu. vi. 17). There is a close verbal agreement between Mark and Luke in the exorcism of the “ legion ” (a name that does not occur in Mark) ; in the raising of the daughter of J airus ; and in the stilling of the storm. But gradually as Matthew approximates to Mark, Luke deviates from Mark. There is a return to similarity in the pre- paration for the Passover (.Ik. xiv. 12-16; Lu. xxii. 7-13); but from this point Luke deviates more and more, and, with the 1-xv-ption of two words (mam a11d ¢éuos) in the incident of 1i:ll‘t1l)l):].S, and of a somewhat closer approximation in the incident of Joseph of .'rimath:ea, it may be almost said that Luke has _ 1 In the words of the Lord the three Gospels are often closely similar, but seldom in the deeds. and of Luke and Mark) has consisted mostly of short “words of the Lord,” set in a framework of short narratives, and very seldom agreeing exactly for more than seven or eight consecutive words. But we now come upon “ words of the Lord ” in Matthew and Luke, some of which agree exactly for several sentences. What was the origin of this close agreement? In order to gain some view of the data for solving this problem, we must briefly consider the principal passages common to Matthew and Luke alone. The temptation (Mat. iv. 1-10; Lu. iv. 1-12) and the healing of the centurion’s servant (Mat. viii. 1-13; Lu. vii. 1-10) are the principal narratives of fact common to Matthew and Luke alone. They resemble the narra- tives of the Triple Tradition in agreeing so far as con- cerns the words of Jesus, and of those who address Him, much more than in the general narrative. In the narra- tive of _;"m-ts, the story of the centurion in Luke differs altogether from that in Matthew; in the tcmptation, the difference is less. Dismissing these, we pass to the “words of the Lord.” As Luke’s avowed object was to write “in order,” we will adhere to his arrangement in o11r enumeration. (1) Mat. iii. 8-10; Lu. iii. 8, 9. “Generation of vipu-l.<." 350.; this agrees 1'crbalz'm, except that Luke has zipgnaee, Wilt-1'0 Matthew
has 5¢i§1]'re.