¹ E.g. Bacon, B. W., Studies in Matthew (New York, 1930), pp. 470 ff.Google Scholar

² E.g. Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), pp. 16, 49.Google Scholar

³ CfManson, T. W., ‘The Old Testament in the Teaching of Jesus’, B.J.R.L. XXXIV (1951–52), 312–32.Google Scholar

⁴ E.g. ibid. p. 318, in relation to Mark xii. 29 f.

⁵ CfGundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St Matthew's Gospel with special reference to the Messianic Hope (Leiden, 1967), p. 174.Google Scholar

⁶ CfSuhl, A., Die Function der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium (Gütersloh, 1965), 198 pp.Google Scholar

¹ Gerhardsson, B., ‘The parable of the sower’, N.T.S. XIV (1967–68), 168.Google Scholar

² Ibid.

³ Nielsen, E., The Ten Commandments in New Perspective (S.B.T., 2nd ser. 7) (London, 1968), p. 12 n. 4.Google Scholar

⁴ Mann, J., The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue (Cincinnati, 1940), vol. 1, esp. p. 12.Google Scholar

⁵ Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (London, 1961).Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. p. 273.

¹ Also recognized by Branscomb, B. H., The Gospel of Mark (The Moffatt New Testament Commentary) (New York and London, n.d.), p. 182. This order is also found in the Jewish catechetical tradition according to A. Seeberg, Die beiden Wege und das Aposteldekret (1906), pp. 10 f., cited byGoogle ScholarStendahl, K., The School of St Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (Philadelphia, [1954], 1968), p. 62.Google Scholar

² Swete, H. B., The Gospel according to St Mark (London, 1898), p. 211, followed by R. H. Gundry, op. cit. p. 18 n. 6, suggests it was placed last to emphasize its importance as a practical abrogation of the oral law.Google Scholar

³ Some sixty instances in the synoptic gospels as against only one instance (Matt. vi. 5) of οὐ with the future indicative as an imperative apart from LXX citations. Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Funk, R. W., trans, and rev. (Chicago, 1961), p. 183, note that the LXX usage does not greatly influence the rest of New Testament usage. R. H. Gundry, op. cit. p. 17, says this ‘exception to his [Mark's] close adherence to the LXX in formal quotations of the OT…is understandable in view of the varying forms which the decalogue took in catechetical use’.Google Scholar

⁴ R. H. Gundry, loc. cit., accepts this as a later insertion in the Marcan tradition. Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark (London, 1952), p. 428, thinks it may be an illustration of the tendency towards expansion.Google Scholar

⁵ B. H. Branscomb, loc. cit.

¹ Paterson, W. P., art. ‘Decalogue’ in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Hastings, J. (New York, 1898), 1, 581.Google Scholar

² Mark^{W fam. I fam. 13. 28} are classified as pre-Caesarean, representing the Old Egyptian text brought by Origen to Caesarea. These, together with Clement of Alexandria, would all be subject to the influence of the Egyptian tradition of the LXX. See Metzger, B. M., The Text of the New Testament: its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford, 1964), p. 215.Google Scholar

³ Also considered a later addition by B. H. Branscomb, loc. cit. and V. Taylor, loc. cit. It is more likely that this is an addition at this stage than a substitution for μ⋯ ⋯ποστɛρἠσῃς, since there is no attempt to place τἰμα τ⋯ν πατ⋯ρα σον κσἰ τἠν μητ⋯ρσ in its original order.

⁴ K. Stendahl, op. cit. p. 63.

⁵ de Waard, J., A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament (Leiden, 1966), p. 36.Google Scholar

⁶ B. W. Bacon, op. cit. p. 477. Cf. p. 207 n. 3 above.

⁷ So Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary) (Cambridge, 1959), p. 328. R. H. Gundry, op. cit. p. 18, suggests μ⋯ πορνɛὑσῃς is a doublet for μ⋯ μοιχεηὑσῃς, suggested by Mark vii. 21; but he gives no reason for the inclusion of this doublet to the exclusion of μἠ Φονεὐῃς which he notes is not omitted in Mark vii. 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹ Thus, R. H. Gundry, op. cit. p. 23. K. Stendahl, op. cit. p. 76, considers the readings of D to be later corrections of the same type as the hexaplaric corrections in the LXX. It may be, however, that D is a later correction based, not on the Hebrew original, but on an earlier Greek tradition.

¹ B. Gerhardsson, loc. cit.

² Torrey, C. C., Documents of the Primitive Church (New York and London, 1941), p. 80, considers δι⋯νοια to be a later addition to Mark, its position showing it to be a result of conflation, which ‘had a further result in the contamination of both Matthew and Luke’. R. H. Gundry, op. cit. p. 23, points out that δι⋯νοια is omitted in D pc it and is in a different place in A and the majority of Lucan MSS, ‘both of which are often tell-tale signs of a gloss inserted into the text’. B. Gerhardsson, op. cit. p. 170 n. 1, suggests that the two readings could indicate a double interpretation of not only the objective factor (mammon) but also the subjective (human reason which treats with mammon); but there is nothing to indicate that Mark understood this.Google Scholar

³ K. Stendahl, op. cit. p. 75.

⁴ Johnson, S.E., ‘The biblical quotations in Matthew’, H.T.R. XXXVI (1943), 147 f., considers this to be the Q text originally used by Luke and conflated with the Marcan version in Matthew.Google Scholar

⁵ R. H. Gundry, op. cit. p. 24.

⁶ Holtz, T., Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (Berlin, 1968), p. 65, also considers ⋯ν to have been in the original text used by Luke and ⋯κ to have been an assimilation. BothGoogle ScholarSimpson, R. T., ‘The major agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark’, N.T.S. XII (1965–6), 280, and C. C. Torrey, op. cit. p. 80 n. 45, consider ⋯ν in Luke to have been from Matthew. It appears, though, that both Luke and Matthew are dependent on an earlier common tradition rather than on each other.Google Scholar

¹ CfFunk, R. W., Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York, 1966), pp. 221 f.Google Scholar

² Conversely, Weiss, J., Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen, 1907), 1, 187, andGoogle ScholarMontefiore, C. G., The Synoptic Gospels (London, 1909), 1, 287, consider this text of Luke to be the original form on which Mark is based, since the answer of Jesus is the main point in Mark, and Luke would not have ascribed a reply of Jesus to a Pharisee.Google ScholarManson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus (London, 1949), pp. 259 f., however, considers the Lucan account to be independent of Mark and to represent a separate incident. But he himself observes ‘the Lucan story begins in earnest where die Marcan leaves off’. The above hypothesis of the way in which Luke utilized the answer of the scribe provides an explanation for Manson's observations.Google Scholar

³ This corresponds with the observation of S. E. Johnson, op. cit. p. 148, that when Mark and Q overlap, Matthew conflates the two versions.

⁴ Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), p. 249, presumes that Matthew omitted the opening words as he did not consider the actual credo to be technically a ‘commandment’, since he is careful to base his religious observations on the imperative pronounce ments from the OT. It would appear, however, that these words were already omitted in at least one form of the tradition known to him, which may have been attractive to Matthew according to the reasoning suggested by Daube.Google Scholar

⁵ Also the conclusion reached by France, R. T., Jesus and the Old Testament (London, 1971); p. 241;Google ScholarO'Rourke, J.J., ‘Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospels’, Studia Montis Regii VII (1964), pp. 50 f.; R. T. Simpson, loc. cit.; and K. Stendahl, op. cit. p. 75; all of whom except O'Rourke agree that the Matthaean retention of δι⋯νοια shows a dependence on Mark.Google Scholar

¹ B. Gerhardsson, op. cit. p. 170 n. I. C. C. Torrey, op. cit. p. 81, maintains that δι⋯νοια in Matthew is a substitution for δὑναμις made by a scribe who had in mind the δι⋯νοια of Mark, Luke and the LXX. There is no textual evidence for this.

² E.g. R. H. Gundry, op. cit. pp. 17 ff., S. E. Johnson, op. cit. p. 148; J.J. O'Rourke, op. cit. p. 60; R. T. Simpson, op. cit. pp. 279 f.; K. Stendahl, op. cit. pp. 75 f.

¹ See above, p. 210, n. 4.

² K. Stendahl, op. cit. p. 63.

³ S.E. Johnson, loc. cit.; J. J. O'Rourke, op. cit. pp. 50 f.; R.T. Simpson, op. cit. p. 280; K. Stendahl, op. cit. p. 75.

⁴ B. Lindars, op. cit. p. 284.