the fact that the copy of Mk. used by Mt. and Lk. had already undergone textual correction from the original form of the Gospel. That is to say, the text of Mk. used by Mt. and Lk. may be called a recension of the original Mk., whilst the text of Mark as we have it is another recension. E.g. Mk 141 has σndayxviodeís, but Mt. and Lk. both omit the word. It is quite possible that their copy of Mk. had opyɩobeís, which is read by Daff2. The omission of Mt. and Lk. would then be parallel to other changes made by them in Mk.'s text. In Mk 118 the majority of MSS. have čσrpwσav, but D S1 curss. have the imperf. eorpúvvvov, which has the advantage of being in Mk.'s style and is probably original. Now Mt. probably read the imperfect in Mk. He alters it in accordance with his custom into the aorist in 218, but he shows his knowledge of it by repeating the verb in the imperfect. And Lk. also read the imperfect in Mk. (4) Some of the agreements in question are probably due to the fact that the texts of the second and third Gospels have been assimilated. E.g. Mt. in 2285-40 and Lk in 1025-27 have a narrative similar to Mk 1228-4, in which they have several agreements against Mk. One of the most important of these is the word voμkós, by which they describe the questioner. But vonós is omitted from Mt. by 1. S1 Arm. Orig., and may be due to assimilation to Lk. In Mt 214 the majority of MSS. have a verse which is not found in the section in Mk., but which is also inserted in the corresponding section in Lk. But in Mt. the verse is omitted by D 33 abeff1.2 S1, and may be due to assimilation to Lk.; or, as suggested in the commentary, it may be a gloss which came into the first Gospel, and was incorporated into the third by the same or by a later copyist. If we could recover the text of our two Gospels as they left the hands of the Evangelists, it is quite possible that the number of their agreements would be largely diminished. (5) Lastly, amongst his many sources (Lk 11) Lk. may have seen and read Mt., though his use of it is so slight that he cannot have had it constantly before him. This can nowhere be proved, but would obviously explain many agreements, both in matter parallel to Mk. and in non-Marcan material. I am inclined to believe that Lk 1714 is due to abbreviation of Mt 186-21 (see notes), and the agreement of Mt. and Lk. in substituting everúλugev for the èveiλnoev of Mk 1546 seems to me to be most naturally explained by the theory that Lk. had read Mt. and was here influenced by reminiscence of his language. Of course, if a reasonable case could be made out for Lk.'s dependence upon Mt. in any one case, then a large number of agreements between the two Gospels would be at once more easily explained by this fact than by any other theory. B. MATTER COMMON TO MATTHEW AND LUKE ALONE. Mt 37-12 = Lk 37-17. See note on Mt 37-12. Probably not borrowed from a common written source. 42-11 See note on Mt 42. Probably not borrowed from a common written source. = Lk 42-13. 545 548 547 71 627a, 28b 692. 633 636. 637a 72 638b These parallels suggest that Mt. and Lk. had before them different recensions of the Sermon on the Mount. 622.23 624 625-84 77-11 718.14 22.23 722. Sermon. ་། 1233. 34 II 34. 35 1613. 1222-31 I 19-13 1324 1325-27 It will be seen that Mt. has in close connection sayings which in Lk. appear in different contexts. There is also a good deal of divergence in language. The former fact makes it unlikely that these sayings were 1 Cf. Mk 950. drawn from a common written source unless it were a Mt 811-12 85-13 = Not from a common source, but either from oral tradition or from independent written sources. note on Mt 85-18. See Not from a common written source, but from oral I 12.8 114-11 718-21 1616. 781-35 1013-15 1012. 1021. 22 145. II14. Not from a common written source, but from independent The similarity here may be accidental. See note on. 1227.28 1230 1232 1283-35 1288 I 239.40 Sign. 1241 I 242 I 243-45 1210 Independent versions of the parable. See the commentary. 1821.22 21821 Independent written sources. Or Luke may have been influenced by Matthew. See note on Mt 1815. 1761 1547. 171. 178. 174. 729.80. 20181 1152. 2235-40 1 234 2318 2314 2323 2325.26 2327.28 2329-81 2334-86 2337-39 1142 II 99-41 1144. II47.48 I 149-51 1334. 35 Not from a common written source. See note on Mt 231. From independent sources. End of world. Perhaps from a common written source. Talents. Independent versions of the parable. It will be seen that the material tabulated above falls into two groups. A. A few narrative sections: B. Sayings of Christ. Some of these are isolated sayings or small groups of sayings which occur in different contexts in the two Gospels; eg.: * Mt 513 18 * 515 * 518 * = = Lk 1434. 1133 1617 1257-59 1618 1230 1114 1283-34 II 34-35 1613 1222-31 I 19-13 1324. 1326-27 1328-30 1026-33 640. 1034-36 122-9 1037-38 1251-58 1039 1426-27 1211 1733 1316-17 145. 1514 2132! 1023-24 21441 729. 301 2443-51 2514-30 1334-35 1239-46 1911-28 = In the passages marked * there is, besides the difference of setting, considerable verbal variation. Note, however, in Mt 69-13 = Lk 1114 the remarkable agreement in movσios. In the passages marked there is very close verbal agreement, with occasional variation. So far as these passages go, the divergence in setting, combined with the differences of language, are adverse to the theory of a common Greek source, unless that were a collection of detached sayings or groups of sayings. The few passages marked † might |