¹ In order to keep this essay within bounds, I shall not discuss or even summarize the various theories as to the special sources of Luke, nor the various interpretations of the facts dealt with.

² Isidore Lévy, La légende de Pythagore de Grèce en Palestine, Paris, 1927, pp. 170 ff.; 310 ff.

³ The text in Lk. 6, 20 reads ὑμετέρα ἐστίν, in the present, but the Aramaic word expresses both present and future, and the use of the future in all the other Beatitudes requires the future here. That both Luke and Matthew have the present tense in this one Beatitude is evidence of the early decline of eschatological interest. In Lk. 6, 24 the meaning is, ‘Ye have now your allotted portion of happiness.’

⁴ It is not likely, however, that one evangelist has preserved in his rendering the form and meaning exactly, while all the changes are due to the other.

⁵ This is true in a measure also of “Blessed are the persecuted” and “Blessed are ye when men revile you” (5, 10–11).

⁶ Maurice Goguel, Introduction au Nouveau Testament, I, Les évangiles synoptiques, Paris, 1925, pp. 494 ff.

⁷ B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, a Study of Origins, treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship and Dates, London, 1924; 3rd edition, 1927.

⁸ It has been especially accepted and justified with new arguments by Vincent Taylor, Behind the Third Gospel: a Study of the Proto-Luke Hypothesis, Oxford, 1926.

⁹ Or, more exactly, a Proto-Luke already enlarged with elements taken from Q.

¹⁰ Streeter (p. 202) counts up that in the other parts of the gospel common to Mark and Luke, 53 per cent of the words in Luke are Mark's, whereas in the passion narrative the proportion is only 27 per cent.

¹¹ This section comprises the Sermon in the Plain and the succeeding incidents as far as the parable of the two debtors and the mention of the attendant women. Up to this point Luke had followed Mark closely except in the case of the rejection at Nazareth (4, 16–30) and the calling of the first disciples (5, 1–11).

¹² A minor resemblance (Lk. 6, 38 = Mk. 4, 24) is probably due to a common dependence on Q.

¹³ The few resemblances to Mark in this section of Luke are due, according to Streeter, to the existence of parallel elements in Q and Mark. It seems more natural to suppose that in these places Mark and Luke both depend on Q. However, for our purpose, the two explanations are equivalent.

¹⁴ He believes that Q was composed at Antioch about the year 50.

¹⁵ This he believes was composed at Caesarea about the year 60.

¹⁶ Streeter considers that the first two chapters of Luke do not come from Proto-Luke, but from a special source.

¹⁷ From Lk. 3, 1 to the end of chapter 4, Luke follows Mark almost exactly; then he gives the story of the miraculous draft of fishes (5,1–11), which partly corresponds to Mark (1, 16–20); thereafter, from 5, 12 to 6, 19, he follows Mark again.

¹⁸ I shall not discuss Streeter's argument from an analogy between the composition of the Third Gospel and that of the Book of Acts. His view is that Luke first wrote out a diary of travel and later incorporated it in his history. For two reasons we cannot draw inferences as to the gospel from the composition of Acts: (1) In Acts we are limited to the uncertain results of internal analysis. (2) In writing Acts the author had no model, while for the gospel a literary type was already established. It would be interesting to see how far the same editorial methods can be traced in the two books, but the study would have to begin with the gospel, not with Acts.

¹⁹ Among the pieces peculiar to Luke the origin of which should be sought in Q, we note the following: 7, 40–43; 10, 1–20; 10, 20–37; 11, 5–8; 11, 27–28; 12, 13–21; 12, 47–48; 13, 6–9; 14, 28–33; 15, 8–10; 15, 11–32; 16, 1–8; 17, 7–10; 17, 20–35; 18, 1–8; 18, 9–14. These sixteen passages include at least ten parables.

²⁰ In a fragment of this gospel preserved by Epiphanius (Haer. 30, 9), it is said that John the Baptist was fed, not on locusts (ἀκρίδες) and wild honey, but on wild honey which tasted like manna, or like a fritter (ἐγκρίς) cooked in oil.

²¹ H. Grégoire, ‘Les sauterelles de Saint Jean-Baptiste,’ Byzantion, V, 1929–30, pp. 109–128.

²² It should be noted that the difference in the places where the notice of John's mode of life occurs in the first two gospels does not invalidate the theory that it was a later insertion in each.

²³ Except for the introduction, Lk. 3, 15–16a, made necessary by the preceding insertion of moral admonitions (3, 10–14). The peculiarity of this introduction, namely the hearers’ suspicion that John is the Christ, has its point as against certain of John's disciples, and reveals a situation similar to that implied in the Fourth Gospel. This seems to be a late situation, apparently unknown to Mark and Matthew.

²⁴ This is confirmed by the fact that the statements about John the Baptist seem to have been conceived originally from the point of view of John and his disciples, and in all probability come from a baptist circle; while the story of Jesus’ baptism is conceived from the point of view of Jesus, and certainly proceeds from a Christian circle.

²⁵ Matthew's slight and unimportant differences from Mark here will be mentioned later.

²⁶ See Maurice Goguel, ‘Le rejet de Jésus à Nazareth,’ Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, XII, 1911, pp. 321–324.

²⁷ Or rather, a later reviser of Mark, for the difference of Matthew's correction from Mark's suggests that he did not have our text of Mark.

²⁸ Another reason for thinking that there was once a simpler form of the episode at Nazareth than the one we read in Mark, is furnished by the Fourth Gospel (Jn. 4, 45 ff.). At the beginning of the second sojourn in Galilee, after Jesus has passed through Samaria, we read: “For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honor in his own country. So when he was come into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast; for they also went unto the feast.” Presently (vs. 48), in the healing of the nobleman's son at Capernaum, a sentence is inserted which does not square with its context and must belong to the account of the reception of Jesus in Galilee: “Jesus therefore said unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.” This could not be addressed to the nobleman, whose appeal to Jesus for his son had not been made to test the prophet's power. It belongs to a tradition that the Galileans wanted to see Jesus support his authority on miracles, and that he refused. This would correspond to Mark's tradition, but is simpler in form.

²⁹ Repeated, without important variation, in Matt. 4, 18–22.

³⁰ Mark 4, 36 seems to mean (rather obscurely) that the disciples did not join Jesus in the boat until evening, when it was time to cross to the other side. The last clause, “and other boats were with him,” seems to indicate that the editor thinks a single boat could not hold Jesus and his disciples.

³¹ The pericope of the great commandment evidently refers to a public incident, but in Luke it follows immediately, introduced only by καί, upon the return of the seventy (Lk. 10, 17–24), with only the disciples present. This latter piece itself lacks organic unity, if the text is to be accepted which introduces both vs. 22 and vs. 23 by the formula, “and turning to his disciples he said.” This is a case of mere juxtaposition with the next pericope; the evangelist has tried to establish a connection with the pericope of the good Samaritan (10, 29–37) by making this the reply to the question asked by the scribe, “wishing to justify himself.” But no occasion for self-justification is indicated, and the parable answers a different question from the scribe's.

³² It is not important here that the names are not exactly the same in Mark (15, 47 and 16, 1) and in Matthew (27, 56).

³³ Maurice Goguel, L'Évangile de Marc dans ses rapports avec ceux de Matthieu et de Luc, Paris, 1909, pp. 127–131.

³⁴ The same may be said of the cure of a dropsical man on the sabbath (Lk. 14, 1–6).

³⁵ This tradition may originally have been connected with that of Mark 3, 6 (Herodians), and with that of Mark 6, 14–16 (Herod's perplexity). See Goguel, Jésus et les origines du christianisme, I, Paris, 1932, pp. 330 ff.

³⁶ We cannot be sure, from this, that one or the other saying is not authentic, for they may represent different stages of the development of Jesus’ thought.

³⁷ H. Gressmann, ‘Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus,’ Abhandlungen, Berlin Academy, 1918, No. 7; Isidore Lévy, La légende de Pythagore, pp. 177 ff., 310 ff.

³⁸ Note that the malefactor's request does not imply the same conception, for he asks Jesus to remember him when he shall come into his kingdom (Lk. 23, 42).

³⁹ Matthew gives them also in the Sermon on the Mount in relation to adultery (5, 29–30).

⁴⁰ In Matthew this declaration follows the part that is common; in Luke it precedes.

⁴¹ Luke 17, 23–24 = Matt. 24, 26–27; Luke 17, 26–27 = Matt. 24, 37–39; Luke 17, 35–36 = Matt. 24, 40–41.

⁴² Verse 36 is not counted, since it is not accepted in the critical texts.

⁴³ Mark gives only the parable of the leaven.

⁴⁴ I consider authentic the text of codices NABC, with the two cups. See Maurice Goguel, L'Eucharistie des origines à Justin Martyr, Paris, 1910, pp. 108–117; Jésus et les origines du christianisme, I, Paris, 1932, pp. 443 ff.

⁴⁵ For a more complete discussion of this question, see Jésus et les origines, I, pp.468 ff.

⁴⁶ Luke does not indicate how long Jesus was at Jerusalem, but his account makes the impression that the period was brief. He probably thought of it as shorter than it really was. He does not explain, for instance, how Jesus had time to know about the upper chamber (Lk. 22, 11–12).

⁴⁷ The break in the text may, however, be earlier than the introduction of the division into days, for in Luke, where the question as to Jesus’ authority follows almost directly the cleansing of the temple, it is introduced by a reference to “one of those days” of teaching (Lk. 20, 1).

⁴⁸ E. Schwartz, ‘Der verfluchte Feigenbaum,’ Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, V, 1904, pp. 80–84.

⁴⁹ This belief may have been suggested by the figure in the Synoptic apocalypse, Mk. 13, 28.

⁵⁰ The only exceptions are: the widow's mite (Mk. 12, 41–44; Lk. 21, 1–4), possible only at Jerusalem; the prophecy of the destruction of the temple, addressed to the disciples alone (Mk. 13,1–4; Mt. 24, 1–3; Lk. 21, 5–7), of which the same is true; and the Synoptic apocalypse, which is attached to the prophecy of the destruction of the temple.

⁵¹ On the whole question of the Last Supper, see Goguel, L'Eucharistie, pp. 19–20; Jésus et les origines, I, pp. 427 ff.

⁵² It is only an unimportant difference of form, that Mark (14, 24) has, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” while Luke (22, 20) has, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

⁵³ This detail is lacking in an important group of manuscripts (NABW), which omit both vs. 43 and vs. 44. I believe that these verses belong to the authentic text and were suppressed under the influence of orthodox christology, the idea of comfort brought by an angel, as well as that of weakness shown by the bloody sweat, being incompatible with the essential divinity of Christ. John, who in 12, 27–30 transforms the episode of Gethsemane to adapt it to his christology, knew it in the full form given in Luke, for he speaks of a voice from heaven, which some take for thunder, while others say, “An angel hath spoken to him.”

⁵⁴ The meeting of the Sanhedrim may not have been improvised; the members may have already assembled at the high priest's house to wait for Jesus to be brought in.

⁵⁵ Stephen's speech is imperfectly reported, perhaps with lacunae. Insertions can be detected, made either by the editor of Acts or at some earlier stage of the tradition because Stephen's attitude seemed too bold.

⁵⁶ This form of the declaration is secondary as compared with Mark, for it contains only the idea of the glorification, omitting that of the return on the clouds. This is a consequence of the weakening of the expectation of the parousia.

⁵⁷ Strictly speaking, the text may be rendered, ‘It is you who say that I am,’ and understood as a refusal to reply, or even a negation, meaning ‘I do not say it,’ but this is excluded by the fact that the Sanhedrim took the answer as an admission.

⁵⁸ In reality there is no lacuna in Mark, for Pilate did not need to be informed of the charge against Jesus. He himself, at the instigation of the Jewish authorities, had given the order for the arrest.

⁵⁹ If we were to look upon this (as we probably ought not to do) as a theological conception, and not as a more or less irrational popular notion, it could be compared with the idea developed in 2 Corinthians 4–5 and in the Epistle to the Philippians, that the elect ascend to salvation immediately after death.

⁶⁰ Among those who have accepted it we may note V. Taylor (Behind the Third Gospel: a Study of the Proto-Luke Hypothesis, Oxford, 1927), who attempts to confirm it by statistics. Commenting on this, Dibelius (Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1927, coll. 146 f.) finds that the exactness of this method is illusory. It really proves that where Luke is certainly dependent on Mark he has made a far-reaching stylistic revision, saying the same thing in more carefully chosen words. Consequently, as Dibelius observes, the statistics of vocabulary are not at all a proper means for determining the degree of Luke's dependence on Mark. He sums up his impression of Taylor's book in the words, “Ich habe mich von der Durchschlagskraft der Beweise Taylors weder im Kleinen noch im Grossen überzeugen können” (col. 147).

⁶¹ This is because of the close analogy between the accusation of madness brought against Jesus by his relatives and the declaration of the pharisees that Jesus drives out demons in the name of Beelzebub, the prince of demons, which means that Jesus is himself possessed by a demon.

⁶² The verbal likenesses amount only to a few words which could scarcely fail to occur in an account of an exorcism. In Matthew the demoniac is blind as well as dumb, and Matthew adds that those present said, “Is not this the son of David?”

⁶³ Italics are used for the portions that occur in only one of the gospels.

⁶⁴ The logion occurs in Luke in an exhortation to confess Jesus (Lk. 12, 2–12), the equivalent of which, without the logion, is found in Matthew (10, 19. 26–33).

⁶⁵ The adaptation is more complete in Mark. He speaks of sins and blasphemies which are forgiven to the sons of men, instead of the forgiveness of blasphemy against the Son of man. This is clearly a transposition.

⁶⁶ This conclusion is strengthened by an examination of the passages which in Luke are associated with the discussion about possession by evil spirits. These passages are Lk. 11, 16, request for a sign from heaven, inserted in the account of the healing of the demoniac, which calls forth the Beelzebub charge and the reply of Jesus (parable of the strong man); and 11, 24–32, a series of three elements coming after the reply of Jesus: (a) the unclean spirit which finds seven others, (b) the blessing pronounced on the mother of Jesus, (c) the sign of Jonah. There is no orderly arrangement here, but the mere juxtaposition which seems characteristic of Q.

⁶⁷ On the original meaning of the saying about leaven, see Goguel, Jésus et les origines, I, p. 332.

⁶⁸ This parable occurs in Matthew as the parable of the tares. In spite of the obvious differences, the two have the same essential theme, only further developed in Matthew than in Mark.

⁶⁹ These pericopes in Mark and Matthew, in spite of their differences, are to be regarded as parallel, because they occupy exactly the same place in the whole development. Matthew was disconcerted by the physical means required for the cure of the deaf-mute, and substituted for it a group of cures not described in detail and evidently an editorial product.

⁷⁰ Perieopes 10 and 11 of this list have already appeared as Nos. 1 and 2 in List B, but in their setting and their narrative element they are quite different from their equivalents in Luke.

⁷¹ The story of the cure of the blind man of Bethsaida was suppressed by Matthew for reasons similar to those given in note 69 for his substitution of other cures for that of the deaf-mute. As a sort of compensation, Matthew (20, 29–34) has two blind men cured at Jericho instead of one.

⁷² For justification of this hypothesis, see Goguel, Jésus et les origines, I, p. 338.

⁷³ See Maurice Goguel, Au seuil de l'évangile, Jean Baptiste, Paris, 1928, pp. 51 ff.

⁷⁴ For justification of the views here expressed see Goguel, Jésus et les origines, I, pp. 342 ff.

⁷⁵ F. Spitta, ‘Das Gespräch Jesu mit seinen Jüngern in Bethsaida,’ in Streitfragen der Geschichte Jesu, Gättingen, 1907, pp. 85–143; Die synoptische Grundschrift in ihrer Ueberlieferung durch das Lukas-Evangelium, Leipzig, 1912, pp. 214–228.

⁷⁶ Luke did not invent this, but took it from another episode. In Lk. 11, 1 we read that when Jesus had been praying in a certain place, one of his disciples said unto him, “Lord, teach us to pray as John also taught his disciples.” Jesus answered with the Lord's Prayer. This detail is certainly authentic, for the tradition, which attached great importance to showing the complete independence of Jesus from John the Baptist, would not have invented the idea that in giving the Lord's Prayer he was imitating John. What is entirely suitable as an introduction to giving the prayer at the request of the disciples, is not at all suitable for the dialogue on what is thought of Jesus, which he himself initiates.

⁷⁷ I have had this hypothesis in mind for a long time, but have wanted to examine and criticise it myself, repeatedly and at considerable intervals of time, before presenting it to others.

⁷⁸ With the possible exception of some minor corrections, to be regarded as in the field of textual rather than literary criticism.

⁷⁹ The grounds for believing that the two editions were by the same author will be given later; see pp. 53 ff.

⁸⁰ Perhaps introduced without much deliberation, to disguise the fact that Herod's attitude had directly influenced the course of events in the life of Jesus.

⁸¹ Note that it is not possible to separate accurately what is derived from Q and what comes from the special sources of Matthew and Luke.

⁸² Although there is no direct indication of it, yet perhaps what was in the mind of the evangelist was the idea that Jesus’ failure was a necessary condition of the redemptive power of the cross.