1536 = Mt 2749. Μt. has οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ εἶπαν for Mk.'s ambiguous λέγων. Lastly, the substitution of οὗτος ἐστιν in Mt 3l for Σὺ εἶ in Mk 111 may be due to a desire to make it clear that the divine voice was heard not by Christ alone, but by others also. It was a public announcement of His divinity. 10. Under the head of changes made for the sake of greater accuracy may be noted the following: Μk 226 ἐπὶ ̓Αβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως. Mt 124 omits. 521 εἷς τῶν ἀρχισυναγώγων. Mt 918 ἄρχων εἷς ; cf. Schürer, n. ii. 65. 614 βασιλεύς. Με 141 τετράρχης. 622 τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ (αὐτῆς) Ηρωδιάδος. Mt 14 ἡ θυγάτηρ τῆς Ἡρωδιάδος. 881 981 1034 μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας. Mt 1621 1723 2019 τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. οι Ἠλείας σὺν Μωυσεῖ. Μt 178 Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἠλείας. 14 τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄζυμα. Mt 262 omits καὶ τὰ ἄζυμα 1412 τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων ὅτε τὸ πάσχα ἔθυον. 2617 omits ὅτε τὸ πάσχα ἔθυον. Mt 1521 ἐρχόμενον ἀπ' ἀγροῦ = “ coming from work.” Mt 2732 omits. See note. 1546 ἀγοράσας σινδόνα. Mt 2759 omits. See note. 11. Some noticeable changes in point of fact are: ΜΚ 214 Λευεὶν τὸν τοῦ ̔Αλφαίου. Mt 9° ἄνθρωπον-Μαθθαῖον λεγόμενον. 5' Γερασηνῶν. Με 828 Γαδαρηνῶν. 52 ἄνθρωπος. Mt 828 δύο. 89 810 Δαλμανουθά. Mt 15 Μαγαδάν. 104 ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτίμαιος τυφλὸς προσαίτης. Mt 2030 δύο τυφλοί. 1457 τινες. Με 2660 δύο. It is hoped that the facts collected above will be sufficient to convince the reader that of the two Gospels, that of S. Mark is primary, that of S. Matthew secondary. They seem to point all in the same direction. That is to say, whilst it is not inconceivable that such changes should have been made by a later writer in the text of S. Mark, it is extremely improbable that the author of the second Gospel should have been dependent on the first, and have made the changes in the reverse direction. From every point of view, whether it be of linguistic style, of reverence for Christ, of esteem for His Apostles, or of consideration for the reader, the alterations made by Mt. give the impression of belonging to a later stage of evangelic tradition as compared with that represented by Mk. Isolated cases may seem open to question, but anyone who reads through the first Gospel with Mk. before him, asking himself why it is that Mt. differs from the second Gospel, will, I believe, be led to the conclusion that, taken as a whole, his deviations from Mk.'s text can only be explained as due to motives which interpenetrate every part of his work. This subject, however, must not be left without some consideration of the fact that Mt.'s treatment of Mk. often finds a parallel in Lk. In other words, Mt. and Lk. often agree against Mk. in omission and in substitution of a word or phrase, and (rarely) in an insertion. This fact has led to the suggestion that in addition to Mk., Mt. and Lk. had a second source containing parallel matter, and that they not infrequently agree in preferring the language of this second source to that of Mk. This second source might, of course, be either a document already used by Mk., or a document independent of Mk., but containing many parallel sections. The following facts are worthy of consideration: Lk. like Mt. omits many details from Mk.'s narrative. 129 James and John. 226 Abiathar. 3170 Boanerges. 438 the cushion. 13 "about two thousand." 513 637 "two hundred pennyworth." 639 "green"; Lk. also omits "grass." 640" in ranks "-" by hundreds." 93 the fuller. 1451 the young man. 1521 the father of Alexander and Rufus. 1544 Pilate's question about Christ's death. Especially the statements about the thronging of the multitudes : 133.45 22 39. 10. 20 631. Lk. like Mt. frequently omits Mk.'s characteristic words and phrases, καὶ εὐθύς, πάλιν, πολλά, ὅτι after verbs of saying; and substitutes δέ for καί. 22 kaì evĺús occurs only once in Lk. in a non-Marcan passage, 649. πάλιν occurs 3 times in Lk., once, 2320, from Mk. Tоά (adverbial) occurs in Lk. twice, both from Mk., oT after verbs of saying is omitted by Lk. from Marcan passages 14 times. 1725 dé is substituted for κaí by Mt. and Lk. 26 times. See Hor. Syn. p. 120. Like Mt., Lk. avoids Mk.'s historic presents. There is but one instance in Lk., viz. 849 – Mk 535. See Hor. Syn. p. 119. = Like Mt., Lk. substitutes aorists for imperfects, e.g. in Mk 192 42 518.17 67 1218 1473. But Mt. is much more consistent than Lk. in this change. Like Mt., Lk. omits pέaro, avro, from Mk 517. 20 634 831 1028. 32. 47 135 1469; but Lk. has this construction 27 times. Like Mt., Lk. sometimes avoids Mk.'s redundant phrases. Clauses bracketed in the following are omitted by Lk.: Μκ 182 [ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης]. 142 [καὶ ἐκαθερίσθη]. 215 ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοί]. 216 ἴδοντες ὅτι ἐσθίει μετὰ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ τελωνῶν]. 225 [χρείαν ἔσχεν]. 1214 [δῶμεν ἢ μὴ δῶμεν]. Lk. sometimes agrees with Mt. in the substitution of one word for another, generally a common word for a rare one, e.g.: Με 110 σχιζομένους; Mt. Lk. ήνεώχθησαν, ἀνεῳχθῆναι. 113 ἐκβάλλει ; Mt. ἀνήχθη; Lk. ήγετο. 211 κράβαττον ; Μt. κλίνην ; Lk. κλινίδιον. Lk. agrees with Mt. in nearly all the changes mentioned on pp. xxxi ff. with reference to the person of the Lord, omitting either the words in question or the whole paragraph. Exceptions are that Lk. retains the questions in Mk 59.80 and 1414, and rí μe déyeis ȧyalóv in 1018. He omits the entire incident of the cursing of the fig tree which Mt. has modified, and avoids the direct statement of disobedience to Christ's command in 145, which Mt. omitted. In the following changes of the same kind he has not the support of Mt. Mk 188 ¿ov; Lk. åπeoráλŋv, to make it clear that the coming forth from God is intended. Lk. omits the agony in the garden, Mk 1433-34 (Lk 2243-44, which is not in Mk., is omitted by ABRT S1); the mockery by the soldiers, Mk 1516-20a; the spitting, Mk 1465; the feeling of desertion by God, Mk 1534; the rebuke of Christ by St. Peter, Mk 832, Lk. also agrees with Mt. in some of the changes with reference to the disciples. Mk 413 Lk. omits. 440 οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν. Lk. ποῦ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν. 652 Lk. omits the whole section. 910 Lk. omits the whole section. 992 Lk. adds a clause to explain that the ignorance of the disciples was due to the fact that the matter was hidden from them (by God?); cf. Lk 1834 2416. 1024 Lk. omits. 1032 Lk. omits. 10 35-45 Lk. omits the whole section. 1440 Lk. omits the paragraph. In the following changes of the same kind Lk. has not the support of Mt.: 833 the rebuke of St. Peter. Lk. omits the paragraph. 1450 the flight of the disciples. Lk. omits. (1) Of these changes many of the more important might well be due to independent revision of Mk. by Mt. and Lk., especially those relating to Christ and His Apostles. It is evident that contemplation of the life of the Lord, and reflection upon His Person and work, and all that it meant for human life; and the deepening reverence that springs spontaneously from the life of meditation upon His words, and from spiritual communion with Him, and from worship of God in His name, was gradually leading Christian writers partly to refine and purify, partly to make careful choice of the language in which they described His life. In connection with His Sacred Person the choicest words only must be used, choicest not for splendour or beauty of sound or of suggestion, but as conveying in the simplest and most direct way the greatest amount of truth about Him with the least admixture of wrong emphasis. In this respect the Synoptic Gospels present in miniature the same process that afterwards took place on a larger scale in the history of the creeds. Already the Gospel writers found themselves committed to the task of describing the life of One whom they knew to have been a truly human Person, whom yet they believed to have been an incarnation of the Eternal. This task, in which it could never be possible to attain more than a relative amount of success, was increased by the fact that the books to be written were intended not for Christians with years of Christian thought and instruction to soften apparent inconsistencies, nor for men trained in the art of so softening the intellectual paradoxes of life as to escape from mental paralysis, but for the average member of the Christian congregation, simple-minded and matter-of-fact, to whom the narrative of the Lord's life with its double-sidedness would repeatedly suggest hard questions, until use and custom blunted their edge. How could the Lord, if He was divine, ask for information? How could He wish or will things that did not happen? How could it be said that He could not do this or that? Did God really forsake Him in the garden? Could it be that He had prayed a prayer which was unfulfilled ? Was it possible that S. Peter had rebuked Him? Why was He baptized if baptism implied repentance and forgiveness of sin? The first and third Gospels prove themselves to be later than the second by the consideration which they show for the simpleminded reader in questions like this, and it is quite possible that Mt. and Lk. may often have agreed in a quite independent revision of Mk. in these respects. A good many of the verbal agreements, e.g. the grammatical changes, such as the substitution of aorists for historic presents, or the correction of an awkward turn of phrase in Mk., might also be due to independent revision. But no doubt this explanation will not account for all the agreements between Mt. and Lk. taken in their entirety, and we must look for other more comprehensive or supplementary explanations. (2) The theory that Mt. and Lk. had in addition to Mk. a second source, containing parallel matter to almost the whole of Mk., is very unsatisfactory. Here and there it seems to promise a solution. But the attempt to make it explain all the agreements in question ends in the reconstruction of a lost Gospel, almost identical with our S. Mark, save for the points of agreement between Mt. and Lk. which are in question. Is it in the least likely that there should have existed a second Gospel so similar to that of S. Mark? And granting this, is it probable that two later writers would have independently turned from S. Mark to pick out words and phrases from this Mark's "double"? See, further, Abbott, Corrections of Mark, 319. Here and there, however, the principle which underlies this explanation will be of service. Mt. and Lk., e.g., agree, against Mk., in certain words of the parable of the Mustard Seed. It is possible that Mt. turned here from Mk. to the Logia (see p. lvi), whilst Lk.'s account of the parable, which does not stand in his Gospel in the place where Mk 430-32 should occur, but later, was taken from some source where it occurred in a form like that of the Logia. This would account for agreements between Mt. and Lk. Along these lines, that the agreements in question are sometimes due to the fact that Mt. and Lk. independently agree in re-editing Mk., and they are sometimes due to the fact that Mt. and Lk. sometimes substitute for Mk. a second tradition which they drew immediately from different sources, much may be explained. But three other factors must probably be taken into account. (3) Some of the agreements in question are probably due to |