¹ Matt. 10:5 f.

² Matt. 15:21–28 + 29.

³ Fortunately it is not necessary in this essay to struggle with Mark's geoggraphy: καὶ πάλιν ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τῶν ὁρίων Τύρου ἦλθεν διὰ Σιδῶνος εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ὁρίων Δεκαπόλεως.

⁴ It can scarcely be doubted that these substitutions in Matthew are deliberate, and that in his judgment Jesus did not transgress his own self-imposed rule. His inclusion of Sidon (καὶ Σιδῶνος) reflects Mark's διὰ Σιδῶνος. By the addition καὶ Σιδῶνος Matthew compensates for its omission in 15:29, makes clear that τὰ μέρη Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶνος is quite distinct from τὰ ὅρια Τύρου and that Jesus did not “go through” any heathen city, and avoids Mark's tangled geography.

⁵ Matt. 7:6.

⁶ On the basis of both transcriptional and intrinsic probability the deletion of Ἰουδαῖοι in Acts 2:5 is warranted.

⁷ Acts 2:38–41.

⁸ This is but another of the many and different hints that are overlooked when the possibility of a genetic relation between Matthew and Luke is so confidently ruled out of court.

⁹ Luke 4:16–30.

¹⁰ Those who are very sure that Luke could not have used Matthew may with profit ponder Luke 4:16a + 31a in the light of Matt. 4:13. Did this addition or “inference” of Matthew contribute to Luke's readiness to remove the later story from its Markan context to serve as his key passage?

¹¹ Matt. 10:5.

¹² Luke 9:51–56; 10:29–37; 17:11–19.

¹³ Luke 9:51–18:14.

¹⁴ Most modern editors prefer κώμην. Both readings are well attested. The possibility of scribal harmonization on the basis of Matt. 10:5 probably has been influential in leading to the printing κώμην. If, however, as is suggested below, the Matthaean verse is in Luke's mind as he wrote, πόλιν is to be preferred. In that case the variant is to be explained as due to harmonization with εἰς ἑτέραν κώμην (v. 56).

¹⁵ καὶ ἐκεῖθεν [i.e., from Capernaum: Mark 9:33] ἀναστὰς ἔρχεται εἰς τὰ ὅρια τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (Mark 10:1).

¹⁶ Matt. 19:1.

¹⁷ Cf. Acts 15:3.

¹⁸ The verbal agreement between II Kings 1:10–12 (IV Kings 1:10–12 [LXX]) and Luke 9:54 — cf. κατέβη πῦρ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατέφαγεν αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς πεντήκοντα αὐτοῦ with πῦρ καταβῆναι ἀπὀ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἀναλῶσαι αὐτούς — is scarcely accidental, and early was noted; cf. the correct gloss ὡς καὶ Ἠλἱας ἐποίησεν.

¹⁹ There can be little question that ʇhe seven “deacons” (Acts 6:3), who speedily become preachers, correspond to these seventy. In this connection it is perhaps not without interest to remember the 120 (10 X 12) brethren of Acts 1:15, and that according to the Mishna (Sanh. i, 6) 120 is the smallest group to be able to have a Sanhedrin and that the chiefs in the community are in the ratio of one to ten.

²⁰ Acts 7:51–53.

²¹ Mark 3:17.

²² Mark 11:1–10.

²³ Other Matthaean-Lucan contacts are (1) νομικός (2) διδάσκαλε as a preface to the question (easily deduced by one — less probably by both independently — from Mark 12:32); (3) ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτῷ (Matt.), ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν (Luke), as against ἀπεκρίθη (Mark); (4) ἐν τῷ νόμῳ; (5) the common omission of ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ … εἷς ἐστίν; (6) ἐν ὄλη (Luke uses ἐν + dat. in three of his four clauses; Matt. has ἐν in all three of his; Mark employs ἐξ + gen. throughout).

²⁴ Luke 7:43.

²⁵ Mark 14: 3–9.

²⁶ Luke 7:36–50. In both cases the host is Simon. Luke makes him a Pharisee (instead of a leper) because of the nature of the context in which he plans to use this material (cf. 7:30 and the reference to “eating and drinking”). The omission of the leprosy is not surprising. Jesus healed lepers; he did not eat with them. The story of Lazarus the leper quite compensates for this omission. The woman is represented as a sinner because in the accompanying parable, which all this is to introduce, the debtors were “forgiven.” And furthermore it is a most appropriate expansion of the theme intimated in the preceding section: The “people” and the publicans and “sinners” (cf. Luke 7:29, 34 f.) are wisdom's children. This next section (7:36–50) shows why that is the case.

²⁷ “Sens et origine de la parabole évangélique dite du bon Samaritain” in Revue des Études Juives, vol. IV, 1882, pp. 249–255Google Scholar.

²⁸ “Juifs et Samaritains ne mangeaient jamais ensemble et se refusaient mutuellement l'hospilalité. Dans ces conditions on ne conçoit guère comment un Samaritain pouvait se trouver en Judée sur la route de Jéricho, être en bons termes avec le maître d'hôtel, et surtout aller et venir à Jérusalem quand il lui plaisait” (pp. 253 f.).

²⁹ C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, vol. II, p. 467.

³⁰ B. T. D. Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels, p. 181.

³¹ It is tempting to wonder if this phrase ἐπισκοπὴ δὲ κυρίου ὑπερεῖδέν με may not have suggested in Luke's mind the scene of the priest and the Levite (ministrants of the Lord) passing by without regard. A sorry mistranslation surely, but even in this day of annotated texts strange misquotations of the Bible are far from unknown, especially when the biblical knowledge is largely due to the memory of words heard read in church. It is not improbable that Luke's knowledge — like that of the majority of his fellow Christians — was acquired in this way.

³² There is one linguistic point which has apparently escaped attention. In Luke 10:30 occurs the phrase ὑπολαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν. This idiom, common in Attic Greek, occurs only here in the New Testament, and, save for two occurrences in Daniel (3:9, 95), only in Job in the Old Testament. But in Job it occurs no less than twenty-five times, one of them being 6:1 (ὑπολαβῶν δὲ Ἰὼβ λέγει). It was the chance discovery of this curious coincidence now many years ago which first led me to consider a possible relationship.

³³ Touches characteristic of Luke, i.e., which are limited to Luke-Acts or which occur there conspicuously often, in this parable may be noted:

(1) ἄνθρωπός τις (v. 30), a common Lucan initial designation (cf. 12:16; 14:2, 16; 15:11; 16:19 and frequently).

(2) πληγὰς ἐπιθένες (v. 30) — so also Acts 16:23 (cf. also Luke 12:48 and Acts 16:33).

(3) ὁμοίως (vv. 32, 37), classed by Easton (in loc.) as “L.” Its frequency in Mark, Matt., Luke is 2, 3 (4), 11; see below.

(4) ἐπιβιβάσας (v. 34), otherwise only in Luke 19:35 and Acts 23:24.

(5) κτῆνος (v. 34), only here and Acts 23:24. The common use of these latter two words in Luke 10:34 and Acts 23:24 is to be noted.

(6) ἤγαγεν (v. 34). A distinctly Lucan word, occurring in Luke-Acts forty times, in Matt. four, and Mark three.

(7) ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔλεος μετ΄ αὐτοῦ. With this “Hebraic” phrase cf. ποιῆσαι ἔλεος μετὰ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν (1:72) and τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ εἰς κτλ. (1:50, where apparently ἐποίησεν is to be understood). [Both of these latter examples are in biblical quotations.]

(8) ποίει ὁμοίως (v. 37). With this is to be compared ὁμοίως ποιείτω (3:11 — in a unique, i.e., “Lucan” passage) and ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς ὁμοίως (6:31; for ποιεῖτε … ὁμοίως Matt. reads οὔτως … ποιεῖτε).

³⁴ Luke 17:11–19.

³⁵ B. S. Easton, The Gospel According to St. Luke, ad loc.

³⁶ Although διέρχεσθαι + διά with the genitive occurs in Luke (cf. 11:24), he more commonly uses διέρχεσθαι in the transitive sense “traverse” with the object accusative, or absolutely, with no specific mention of the region traversed. It appears to me possible that it is used here in the latter sense, and that the verse is adequately rendered: “And it came to pass that on his journey to Jerusalem his route was via Samaria and Galilee.” The seemingly ungrammatic διὰ μέσον may well be simply one more example of adverbs or adverbial phrases coming to have essentially the force of prepositions, and as such regularly standing before a genitive.

³⁷ Easton, op. cit., who regards the later story as coming from L, the former from Mark supplemented by Q, discovers Luke using in his opening words “an L phrase” which he repeated from 5:1 as he links back into Mark.

³⁸ πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον (5:12), ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον (17:16). The later story, of course, requires that this be done by one grateful man; hence it is after, not before, the cure.

³⁹ II Kings 5:1 ff. (IV Kings 5:1 ff. [LXX]).

⁴⁰ Cf. ὑπέστρεψεν … δοξάζων τὸν θεὸν (Luke 17:15) with καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν … καὶ εἶπεν Ἰδοὺ ἔγνωκα ὄτι οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ ὄτι άλλ' ἤ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ (IV Kings 5:15).

⁴¹ Luke 18:35–43; Mark 10:46–52; Matt. 20:29–34.

⁴² The vocative, ἐπιστάτα, is employed by Luke six times as a term of address for Jesus. It does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. It may confidently be called “Lucan.”

⁴³ Essentially the same situation is found in Matthew. In addition to Matt. 20:30 f. [= Mark 10:47 f.] it occurs three times (9.27; 15:22; 17:15), in all three of which cases it is certainly to be pronounced editorial.