^{page 75 note 1} Knox, John, Marcion and the New Testament, pp. 85–8.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} Knox, , op. cit. p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 2} Ibid. p. 110.

^{page 76 note 3} Ibid. p. 130.

^{page 77 note 1} Pericopes which we find in Luke and which we know were included, in some form, in Marcion, are presumed to have been in Primitive Luke. Similarly, pericopes which we now find in Matthew and Luke but which were absent from Marcion were included in Primitive Luke but omitted from Marcion's Gospel. Matthew and Marcion might well omit pericopes for different reasons. Pericopes absent from both Marcion and Matthew are to be suspected as additions to Primitive Luke, but some of these may have been omitted by Matthew and Marcion for different reasons. These generalizations are not to govern our examination of the material, and the status of each pericope must be determined individually. There is no room in this article to set forth my reasons for deciding on the passages listed in Fig. 3.

^{page 77 note 2} B. C. Butler, The Originality of St Matthew; W.R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem.

^{page 77 note 3} Barth, G., in Bornkamm et al., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, p. 63.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 1} Ibid. p. 74; for other passages, cf. Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts.

^{page 78 note 2} Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels, p. 289.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 3} Ibid. Cf. list of ‘Q’ passages, p. 291.

^{page 78 note 4} Ibid. p. 290.

^{page 79 note 1} Ibid. pp. 295–331.

^{page 79 note 2} Farmer, , op. cit. pp. 118–77.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 3} Farrer, Austin, ‘On Dispensing with “Q”’, in Nineham, D. E. (ed.), Studies in the GospelsGoogle Scholar; Simpson, R. T., ‘The Major Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark’, in N.T.S. XII, no. 3 (April 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 1} Barth, , op. cit. p. 108.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 1} The parable of the Friend at Midnight (Luke xi. 5–8), as well as the parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke xviii. 1–8), compares God to an immoral person. God's answer to prayer could not be compared to such reluctant human response in any way at all without debasing God. Matthew's refusal to compare God to lawless or lowly people may be related to traditional Jewish reverence for the name and person of God. Neither excessive familiarity nor base comparisons would be acceptable to a Jewish Christian. Cf. section on lawless people below.

^{page 81 note 2} Jeremias, Joachim, The Parables of Jesus (revised ed.), pp. 132–6; cfGoogle Scholar. also Bultmann, Rudolf, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 171.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 3} The Lost Coin would not serve Matthew's editorial purposes in the Ecclesiastical Discourse as well as the Lost Sheep. The latter needed only a new conclusion to emphasize the need to prevent sin from leading a brother to destruction. Its imagery stressed Matthew's concern for ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel', and it alluded to the shepherd metaphors of the Old Testament. Matthew had good reason to adapt the Lost Sheep, but he had neither need nor reason to adapt the Lost Coin.

The parable of the Leaven (Matt. xiii. 33/Luke xiii. 20–1) is no exception to this pattern, since the Kingdom is compared to the action of the Leaven, not to the work of the woman. Her part is only incidental.

The following table gives passages in which these Matthean attitudes toward women can be examined.

Matt. i. I–ii. 23–Cf. Luke i. I–ii. 52

v. 31–2; xix.9 Mark x. 11–12 xvi. 18

viii.14–15 i.29–31 iv. 38–9

— — vii. 11–17

ix. 18–9, 23–6 V.21–4, 35–43 viii. 40–2, 49–56

ix. 20–2 V. 25–34 viii. 43–8

— — x. 38–42

— — xi.27–8

— — xiii.10–17

xv.21–8 vii.24–30 —

— —xviii.1–8

— xii.41–4 xxi. 1–4

xxv. 1–13 — —

xxvi. 6–13 xiv.3–9 Cf.vii.36–50

xxvii. 55–6 xv.40 Cf. viii. 1–3

xxviii.1–10 xvi. 1–8 xxiv. 1–11

A careful examination of these passages shows differences between Luke and Mark on women, but Luke does not generally increase the Marcan concern for women within passages.

^{page 84 note 1} Bultmann, , op. cit.: for Matt. vi. 7–8 cf. p. 135Google Scholar; for Matt. v. 46–7 cf. p. 88. It is worth noting that Bultmann thinks these negative comparisons are secondary to the Matthean material in which they stand. If he is correct in assigning these changes to a late stage in the development of this Matthean tradition, we have special reason to suppose that the negative attitudes toward Gentiles and tax collectors were operative in the compilation of Matthew's Gospel.

The following table gives passages in which Matthew's attitudes toward immoral people, tax collectors, Samaritans and Gentiles can be discerned.

— — Luke iv.25–7

Matt.v.46–7 — vi.32–3

Matt. Viii. 5–13 — Luke vii. 1–10; xiii. 28–30

ix. 9–13 Mark ii.13–17 v. 27–32

xv.21–8 vii.24–30 —

— ix.38–41 ix. 49–50

— — ix.51–6

— — x. 29–37

— — xi.5–8

— — xvi.1–9

— — xvii.11–19

— — xviii.1–8

— — xviii.9–14

— — xix.1–10

xviii.17 — —

xxi.28–32 — —

^{page 85 note 1} Held, H. J., in Bornkamm et al. op. cit. pp. 291 f. Cf. also Bornkamm, pp. 24–32.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 1} Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origins of the Gospel According to St Matthew, pp. 124–6.Google Scholar The following table lists passages in which Matthew's view of possessions can be discerned.

Matt. v.3, 6 — Luke vi. 20–1

v.46–7 — vi.32–6

vi.19–21 — xii.33–4

x.37–8 — xiv.26–7

xi.7–11 — vii.24–8

xii.25–37 Mark iii.23–30 xi. 17–23

— — xii.13–15

— — xii.16–21

— — xiv.7–14

— — xiv.28–33

— — xvi.14–15

— — xvi.19–31

— — xviii.9–14

xix.16–22 x.17–22 xviii.18–23

xix.23–30 x.23–31 xviii.24–30

xxiv.45–51 — xii.42–6

xxv.14–30 — xix.11–27

xxvi.6–13 xiv.3–9 Cf.vii.36–50

^{page 89 note 1} The editor of Primitive Luke has moved the pericope on Jesus' True Family from its Marcan position before the Sower complex (Matt. xii. 46–50/Mark iii.31–5) to a new place after it (Luke viii. 19–21). Conzelmann, Hans, The Theology of St Luke, p. 35Google Scholar, thinks the new setting is intended to show that whoever has more will be given more but that from those who have not, even what they have will be taken away. Another reason for the present position rests in Luke's concern for how people listen to the word. The editor of Primitive Luke has changed the Marcan ‘whoever does the will of God’ to read ‘who hear the word of God and do it’. This deliberate change points back to the Interpretation of the Sower. Cf. Luke xi.28.

The first editor of the non-Marcan material probably placed the Rejection at Nazareth after the Centurion's Servant (Luke vii. 1–10) and the Widow's Son at Nain (vii.11–17). The editing of the pro-Gentile sermon at Nazareth (Luke iv.25–7) reminds hearers not only of Naaman (II Kings v.1–4), but also of the Centurion. Both were commanders of foreign armies. The prophet Elisha did not go out to meet Naaman, and the latter was insulted. The Centurion will not insult Jesus by having him come in. Naamanapos;s lack of confidence is far surpassed by the Centurion's trust. This Nazareth sermon also mentions God's special favour through Elijah to the widow of Zarephath during the famine. It does not mention the fact that Elijah had also raised her son from the dead (I Kings xvii. 17–24), though early Christians would surely have known that famous story. Here Jesus appears as more than Elijah and Elisha. All this is the work of the non-Marcan editor whose work was used by Primitive Luke. The editor of Primitive Luke broke up this Capernaum-Nain-Nazareth complex but did not delete the clear Capernaum reference in Luke iv. 23.

These two examples illustrate rearrangements made by the editor of Primitive Luke for theological purposes. The Nazareth material also bears the marks of the first editor of Lucan material, though its present position is the work of the editor of Primitive Luke.

^{page 90 note 1} Farrer, Austin, St Matthew and St Mark, p. 176.Google Scholar