The Triple Tradition.— Few are aware of the very small extent to which independent narrators of the same events use the same words. A comparison of a few specimens of independent narratives (of such events, for example, as the attempt to assassinate King Humbert, or the recent death of the Prince Imperial) would show that the narratives often contain scarcely two or three consecutive words in common, and rarely or never a whole clause of five or six words. The same statement applies to narratives of discourses of any length reported from memory, and not from notes taken at the moment. Now it is well known that in many parts of the first three Gospels the same words and phrases are curiously interlaced, in such a way as to suggest that the writers have borrowed either from each other or from some common source. For example, in describing the healing of the sick (Mat. viii. 16; Mk. i. 32; Lu. iv. 40), Matthew begins thus: όψίας δε yevopHης; Mark, δι∕uας δ∈ yevopiwfpi 6τe ∈δυσεv ό ήλιον; Luke, δυvovτoς δέ του ήλιου. From this and many similar passages it might seem natural to infer that Mark borrowed one of these expressions from Matthew and the other from Luke, and that the narrative of Mark is little more than a combination of passages from Matthew and Luke. This is an inference which has actually been drawn by many critics both before and since De Wette; but at present it finds comparatively little support among competent investigators. However, the oscillations of New Testament criticism have been so numerous that it may be of use to indicate a method by which the originality of Mark may be established on an immovable basis. That Mark (at all events in many parts) contains the original document or tradition from which Matthew and Luke have borrowed can be proved to demonstration by a necessary inference from the following specimen of narrative common to the three writers.

MATTHEW XXÎ. 83-44.

33 ’Ά-λ-λ-î; -V παραβολήν (ϊ-κ· ο V σ-α-τ-ε. "Ανθρωπος η ν ο-ι-κ-ο δ-ε σ-π-ό-τ-η-ς, ο-σ-τ-ι-ς εφύτευσεν αμπελώνα, και φραγμόν α-ύ-Τ-ώ πεpιtθηκεv και ώρυξεν 6-V α-Ù-T-çô ληνού και ώκοδόμησεν πύργον, καϊ ε’^εδετο αύτόν γεωpγoiς, καϊ άπεδήμησεν. 34 ο-τ-ε δ ε ή-γ-γι-σ-ε-ν δ-καιρ ό ς τ-ώ-ν κ αρ- •π-ώ-ν, απεστειλεν τ-ο-υ-ς δούλους α-ύ-τ-ού προς τούς γεωργούς λαβ-ε-t-v το-ύ-ς καρπούς α-ύ-τ-ο-ύ. 35 και λαβovτεs οι γεωργοί το-ύ-ς δ-ο-ύλ-ο-υ-ς α-ύ-τ-ού ο V ∣dv ^δεzpav, δ y δε dπε κτ-ε-ί-V α-ν, ον δ-ε ε λ-ι-θ-ο-β-ό-λ-η-σ-α-ν.

36 πdλιv απεστειλεν άλλ-0-V Ç δούλο υ-ç 7Γ-λ-ε-to ν α ς τ-ών π ρ ώτων, κa-t ε-π-ο-ιησα-ν α-ύ-τ-ο-ΐς ώ σ-α-ύ-τ-ω-ς.

37 V-σ-T-e-p-O-V δε απεστειλεν πpos aÙToùs τ-ο-ν υιόν α-ύ-Τ-Ο-ύ λε'γωv ’ Έντραπήσονται τον υιόν μου. 38 Οί δε γεωργοί ίδόντες τ-ό-ν V-ί-ό-νάπ-ο-νε-ν tavT-o-î-ç· Ούτόςεστίν ό κληρονόμος' δεύτε άποκτεινωμεν αυτόν και σ-χ-ώ-μ-ε-ν -την-κληρονο-μ-ί-α-ν α ύ-τ-ού. 39 και λaβovτεs αυτόν εξίβαλον εξω τού άμπελώ-νος καί άπέκτειναν. 40 ο-τ-α-ν ούν ε-λ-θ-τ ∣ ό κύριος τού άμπελώ-νος, τί ποιήσει τ-ο ϊ ς γ-εω-ρ-γ-ο ΐ-ς ε-κ εί-ν-ο-ι-ς; 41 λ-ε-γ-ο-υ σ-ι-ν a -ύτ-ω' Κ-α-κ ο ύ ς κ a κ-ώ-ς απαλέ-σει a ύ τ-ο-ύ-ς, και τον αμπελώνα ε-κ δώσ-ε-τ-α-ι αλλοις γεωργ ο ύς, οϊ-τ-ι-ν-ε-ς ά-π-ο-δ-ώ-σ-ο-υ-σ-ι-ν α-ύ-τ-ώ τ-ο-ύ-ς κα-ρπ-ο-ύ-ς ε-ν τ-ο-ΐ-ς κ α-ι-ρ-ο ΐ ς α-ύ-τ-ώ-ν.

42 λ-έ-γ-ε-ι αύτοΐς ό-Ίη-σ-ο-ύς’ Ov8 ε π-ο τ-ε άνόγνωτε ε-ν τα-ΐ-ς γρα- Φ a i ς' λίθον ον απεδοκίμασαν οί οίκοδομουντές, ούτος εγενήθη εις κεφαλήν γωνίας' παρά Κυρίου εγε'νετο αΰτη, και εστιν θαυμαστή εν oφθaλμoιs ημών; 43 δ-ι-ά τ-ο-ύ-τ-ο λ-εγ-ω ύ μ ΐ ν Ö -τ-ι ά μθ-ή-σ-ε-τ α-ι a-φ , ύ-μ-ώ-ν ή-β α-σ-ι-λ-ε-ΰα το-ύ Θεού κ α ι δ-ο-θ-ή-σ-ε-τ-α ι ε-θ-ν-ε-ι π-ο ι-ο ύ-ν-τ-ι τ-ο-ύ-ς κ-α-ρ-π-ο ύ ς α-ύτ-ής.

44 K a t ό πεσών έπ-ϊ τον λίθον τούτον συvθλaσθησετaι' έφί ον δ’ αν πεση, λικμήσει αύτόν.

LUKE XX. 9—18.

9 Ηρξατο δ-ε π-ρό-ς τον λ-αό-ν λ-έ-γ-ε-ι-ν τ-ή-ν παραβολήν τ-α ύ-τ-η-ν. 'Άνθρωπος εφύτευσεν αμπελώνα και εξεδετο αυτόν γεωργοΐς, και άπεδήμησεν χρ όνους ί-κ α-ν-ο-ύ-ς. 10 και καιρω απεστειλεν προς τούς γεωργούς δούλον, "να από το-ύ καρπό ύ τού αμπελώνος δ ώ-σ-ο-υ σ-ι ν a-vτ-ω ’ οί δ-ε γεωργοί ε ξ απέστειλαν αύτόν δείρ-α-ν-τ-ε-ς κενόν.

11 καί π-ρ-ο-σ-ε-θ-ε-τ-ο ε-τ-ε-ρ ο-ν π-ε-μ-φr-a-ι' ο-ί δ -è κακεϊνον δ-ε-ίρ-α-ν-τ-ε-ς καϊά-τιμάσ-α-ν-τ-ε-ς έ-ξ-απ-έ-σ-τ-ε-ι λ-α-ν κ-ε-ν-ό-ν. 12 καϊ π-ρ-ο-σ-ε-θ-ε-τ-ο τ-p∙ι-τ-ο-v π-ε μ φr-a-i' ο-ί δ-ε κα ι τ-ο-ύ τ-ο-ν τ-ρ-α-υ-μ-ατ-ί-σ-α-ν-τ-ε-ς έ-ξ-ε-β-α-λ-ο-ν,

13 ε-ϊ-π-ε-ν δε όκ-υ-ρ-ι-ο-ς τ-ο-ύ ά-μ-π-ε-λ-ώ-ν-ο-ς' Τ-ί π-ο ι ή-σ-ω; π-ε-μ-φr-ω τον υιόν μου τ-ο-ν αγαπητόν" ί-σ-ω-ς τ-ο ύ-τ-ο-ν έντραπήσονται. 14 ιδovτεs δεα-ύ-τ-ο-ν οί γεωργοί δ-ι-e-λ-ο-γ-ι-ζ-ο-^V-τ-ο προς ά-λ-λ-ή-λ-ο-υ-ς λ-έ-γ-ο-ν-τ-ε-ς' Θύτός εστιν ό κληρονόμος' άποκτεινωμεν αύτόν ί-ν-α ημών γ έ-ν-η-τ-α-ι ή κληρονομιά. 15 καϊ έκβαλ-ό-ν-τ-ε-ς αύτον εξω τού αμπελώνος άπεκτειναν. τί οΰν ποιήσει α-ύ-τ-οΐ-ς ο κύριος τού αμπελώνος; 1G έλευ-σεται καϊ απολύσει τούς γεωργούς τ-ο-ύ-τ-ο-υ-ς, καϊ δώσει τον αμπελώνα αλλοις. à -κ ο-ύ-σ-α ν-τ-ε-ς δ ε εΐ-π-α-ν, Μ ή γ-έ-ν-ο ι-τ-ο.

17 ό-δ-ε ε-μ-β-λ-έ-φτ-α-ς aυτois € L r ∏ ’ -e v l-ι ο-υ-ν e-σ-τ-t-v το- y e- γρα-μ-μ -é-v-o-v τ-ο-ΰ-τ -o' λίθον ôv απεδοκίμασαν οι olκoδo μουντές, ΰύτος εγενήθη εις κεφαλήν γωνίας·,

18 π-ά-ς <5 πεσών èir* έ-κ-ε-ι-ν-ο-ν τον λίθον συνθλασθή σεται’ ίφ' ον δ’ αν Tdtrγ, λικμήσει αύτόν.

MARK ΧΙΤ. 1—11.

1 Kat ή’ρξατο α-ύ-τ-ο-ΐ-ς ε-ν παραβολ-αϊ-ς λα-λ-ε-ι-ν. Αμπελώνα άνθρωπος εφύτευσεν, καϊ περιέθηκεν φραγμόν καϊ ώρυξεν ύ π-ο-λήνα-ο-ν καϊ ώκοδόμησεν πύργον, καϊ εξεδετο αύτόν γεωργοΐς, καϊ άπεδήμησεν. 2 καί άπεστειλεν προς τούς γεωργούς τ-ω καιρω δούλον, ϊνα π-α-ρ-ά τ-ώ-ν γεωργών λάβ η άπο τώ ν καρ-π-ώ-ν τοΰ aμπελωvos∙ 3 καϊ λαβοντες αυτόν έδειραν κ-a ∖ dπε'στειλav κενόν.

4 καί πάλιν απεστειλεν π-ρ-ό-ς α-ύ-τ-ο ύ ς άλλ-ο-ν δούλ-ο-ν' κάκάνον ε-κ-ε-φ-α-λ-ί-ω-σ-α-ν καί ή ripaar a-v. 5 και ά-λ-λ-ο-ν ά-π-ε-σ-τ-ε-ι-λ-ε-ν’ κά κ ε ι-ν ο V à -π-ε-κ-τ-ε-ι-ν-α-ν, κ α-ϊ π-ο-λ λ ο ύ-ς ά-λ-λ-ο-υ-ς, ο ύ-ς μεν δ-ε ρ-ο-ν-τ-ε-ς ο-ύ-ς δε άπ-ο-κτ-ε-ν- v . v -v-τ-ες. 6 yr tr 3 f ∖ ε-τ-ι ε ν a ε-ι-χ-ε ν υιόν αγαπητόν απεστειλεν α ύ-τ ό-ν ε-σχ-α-τ-ο-ν προς αύτούς λέγων ο-τ-ι Έντραπήσονται τον υιόν μου. 7 ε-κ-ε ι ν-ο-ι (?) δε οί γεωργοί πpos εαυτ ο ύς είπ-α-ν ο-τ-ι ούτός εστιν ό κληρονόμος' δεύτε άπο-κτείνωμεν αύτόν, καϊ ήμών ε-σ-τ-α-ι ή κληρονομιά.. 8 καϊ λαβόντες άπέκτειναν αύτον, καϊ έξέβαλον^ α ύ-τ-ο-ν (?) εξω τού αμπελώνος. 9 τί ποιήσει ό κύριος τού άμπε-λώνος j έλεύσεται και aπoλεσεi τoυs γεωργούς, καϊ δώσει τον αμπελώνα αλλοις.

10 Ουδ έ τή-ν γραφή ν τ-α-ύ-τ-η-ν άνεγνωτε, λίθον ον άπε-δοκίμασαν οί οίκοδομούντες, ούτος εγενήθη εις κεφαλήν γωνίας' 11 παρά Κυρίου ίγενετο αύτη καϊ, εστιν θαυμαστή εν όφθαλμοϊς ήμών; It will be observed in the foregoing extracts that (up to verse 11 of Mark), besides the matter common to all three writers, Mark and Luke have a good deal of additional matter in common (ηρξaτo, the dat. term, (καιp)ω, iva από, εζaπεστειλav avτbv κενόν, κάκεΐνον, και ητιμaσav, αγαπητόν, πρός, τ)p,ωv, ελεύσεται και, τoυs γεωργούς); Mark and Matthew have also much additional matter in common (και πεpιεθηκεv φραγμόν και ωpvζεv {yπο)ληv(ιοv) και ωκοδο-μησεv πύργον, και λαβόντες, παλιν a7rε<rτεtλει∕, αλλ(ον), άπεκτειναν, προς αντους λίγων, εaυτ(oυς), εc7r(o)i', δεύτε, λαβόντες, παρά κνρίου εγ ενετό αντη και εστιν θανμαστη εν οφθαλμούς ημών; but, in striking contrast, Matthew and Luke have no additional matter in common, except that in verse 3 of Mark they insert οi γεωργοί for clearness; in verse 7 they insert ιδόντες ; and in verse 9 they insert ovv. Are these facts compatible with the theory that Mark compounded his narrative out of Matthew and Luke 1

We may begin by dismissing the three trifling words which "Matthew and Luke agree in adding to the Triple Tradition (by which we mean the matter common to the three Gospels), as being words that any early editor of Mark might naturally insert. The insertion of the subject in verse 3, for clearness, requires no comment. The oυv in verse 9 softens an abruptness which (however characteristic of Mark) would naturally repel readers and editors. Again, in verse 7 the omission of some phrase to denote that thehusbandmen saw the son approaching before they formed their plan, is so abrupt that lδovτες or θεασάμενοι has been actually supplied in Mark by several manuscripts and versions (possibly, of course, influenced by Matthew and Luke), and might naturally be supplied by still earlier editors, Having therefore accounted for these words, we are led to this result, that, from Mk. xii. 1 to Mk. xii. 11, Matthew and Luke contain nothing in common which is not also found in a slightly modified edition of Mark. This being the case, it can be proved by reductio ad absτιrdum that Mark did not copy from Matthew and Luke. For suppose that he did so copy, it follows that he must not only have constructed a narrative based upon two others, borrowing here a piece from Matthew and here a piece from Luke, but that he must have deliberately determined to insert, and must have adapted his narrative so as to insert, every word that was common to Matthew and Luke. The difficulty of doing this is enormous, and will be patent to any one who will try to perform a similar literary feat himself. To embody the whole of even one document in a narrative of one’s own, without copying it verbatim, and to do this in a free and natural manner, requires no little care. But to take two documents, to put them side by side and analyse their common matter, and then to write a narrative, graphic, abrupt, and in all respects the opposite of artificial, which shall contain every phrase and word that is common to both—this would be a tour de force even for a skilful literary forger of these days, and may be dismissed as an impossibility for the writer of the Second Gospel.

For example, Mark might have begun his narrative, Kα'ι ελεγεv αiτοις, omitting παραβολήν ; he might have borrowed οικοδεσπότης from Matthew and have dropped άνθρωπος ; he might have borrowed πεμψaι from Luke (ver. 11) instead of άπεστειλε. Had he done these things (all natural enough),, we should have at once had, as additional “common matter” for Matthew and Luke, παραβολήν, άνθρωπος, and άπεστειλεν, and all in the space of three verses, and “common matter” proportionally in the rest of the narrative. We may assume, therefore, that Mark did not copy Matthew and Luke in this passage, nor in other passages where a similar phenomenon occurs. But it occurs throughout by far the greater part of Mark’s narrative. We may, therefore, regard it as absolutely certain that by far the greater part of Mark is not borrowed from Matthew and Luke, and that the duality of phrase, which is undoubtedly a characteristic of Mark, must be explained by other causes. (For other passages where Matthew and Luke have little or no additional matter in common, compare more especially the passages parallel to Mk. ii. 13-17; iii. 1-6;. V. 1-39; X. 17-31; xi. 1-10; xii. 13-27; xiii. 1-19; xiv. 1-16; XV. 1-11.)

The question remains, Were Matthew and Luke entirely dependent upon Mark for that part of their narrative which covers the same ground as Mark? It would not be difficult, from a comparison of the three columns above, to make it probable that both Matthew and Luke did not borrow from the complete Mark as we have it. For though each of the three additions οvv, Ιδόντες, οι γεωργοί, is in itself natural enough, yet the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke independently adopted precisely these and no other-additions is most improbable. From a comparison of many such passages the improbability of the borrowing hypothesis might be increased. But as the process of proof could not be complete, and would certainly belong, it will be better to bring forward some short passages which are wholly irreconcilable with the hypothesis of deliberate borrowing, and which point to an original source, either written or oral, round which the three narratives play. Those passages will be most convincing where there are traces that some original tradition has been differently understood by the different writers.

(a) One natural error in interpreting a terse tradition (perhaps translated from Aramaic into Greek) would be to supply different subjects to the same verbs, as in the following important passages, which variously describe the message of the angel or angels to the women at the tomb of Jesus :—

(1) Matt, xxviii. 7, προάγει i ∣ μas ει ’ s τ¾v Γaλι ∖ aiav εκεΐ αυτόν υψεσθε∙ ιδού, εΐπον ΰμΐν— “behold, Ζhave told you.”

(2) Mk. xvi. 7, προάγει l>μas ειs την Γaλιλaiav∙ εκεί αυτόν i>ψεσ0ε, κaθωs εϊπεν ΰμΐν— “asZZctold you.”

On the other hand, Luke, who records several appearances of the Lord to the ’ disciples in or near Jerusalem, and who does not take the Galilean view of the resurrection, finds the words εls τ⅛v Γ. out of place in his narrative. Yet his memory or knowledge of the common tradition is too strong to allow him to omit all mention of Galilee, and he therefore inserts it, but differently.

(3) Lu. xxiv. 6,μvησθητε ωs ελάλησεν ΰμΐν ετι &>v εv τg Γaλιλaia —“remember how He spake unto you while He was still in Galilee.”

(3) (1) Matt. iii. 5, εt i επopευετo πρός αυτόν . · · πάσ α η πεpiχωpos τoυ Ίορδάνου.

(2) Mk. i. 5 (agreeing here with Matthew), εξεπορεύετο πρός αυτόν . . . πάσα η Ιουδαία χώρα.

(3) Lu. iii. 3, ⅛Kθεv ε.'s πάσ αν την περίχωρον του Ίορδάνου. (γ) In some cases the confusion is so important as seriously to affect the context, as in—

(1) Matt. xix. 16, Διδάσκαλε, τί αγαθόν ποιήσω—which is followed (in the correct text) by “Why askest thou me about the good ?”

(2) Mk. x. 17, Διδάσκαλε αγαθέ, τl ποιήσω — which is fol lowed by “Why callest thou me good? ' ’

(3) Luke (xviii. 18) agrees with Mark: Διδάσκαλε αγαθέ, ri πoιησas. Note that a scribe has endeavoured to combine the two traditions by inserting αγαθέ in Matt, xix. 16.

In the following the confusions are between only two narratives :—

(δ) (1) Mk. iv. 19, al μεριμvaι . . . εlσπopευiμεvaι συvπviγoυσι — ,, caresζ^ going into the heart, choke (the word).”

(2) Lu. viii. 14, υπδ μερίμνων . . . πορευόμενοι συvπviγovτaι —“(the men) going their way (or gradually, as in LXX. ), are choked by cares, or under the influence of cares.”

(ε) In the following, Matthew and Mark concur in attributing “desire” and “fear;” but Matthew attributes the “desire” to Herod, Mark to Herodias; again, Matthew makes the object of the “fear” to be the “crowd,” Mark “John the Baptist.”

(1) Matt. xiv. 5, Kαl θeλωv αύτδν aπoκτε7vaι eφoβηθη τδv όχλον.

(2) Mk. vi. 19, Ή δε ’ Hρωδιαs . . . f)θελεv αύτδν aπoκτε7vaι, καί ούκ ήδύνατο· δ yàp Ηρώδης εφoβε7τo τδν 'ϊωάννην.

(f) In a record of dialogue, the phrases, “said he,” “answered they,” would naturally vary (as they do, Matthew, Mark, and Luke having peculiarities in this respect), and they might sometimes be omitted, with the important result of transmuting a statement of fact (Mark) into an utterance of Jesus (Matthew), thus :—

(1) Matt, xxvi. 2, Ofδατε oτι μετά δύο ημέρας τδ πάσχα γίνεται.

(2) Mk. xiv. 1, ’ Hy δετδ πάσχα καί τά άζυμα μετά δύο ημέρας. (δ) t>s έάν είπγ λόγον κατά τού υιού τού ανθρώπου, άφεθησεται αύτψ, ός δ’ etπy κατά τού πνεύματος τού αγίου ούκ άφεθησεται αύτψ oυτe έν τούτω τψ αϊώνι οότε εν τφ μέλλοντι. (2) Lu. xii. 10 (using ει∖ for κατά, εpe7 for άν είπγ, and borrowing from (a) the word βλaσφημε7v}, (δ) κal πaς t>ς έρε7 λόγον εις τδν υίδν τού ανθρώπου άφεθησεται αύτψ, τφ δε els τδ άγιον πνεύμα βλασφημήσαντι ούκ άφεθήσεται. (3) Mk. iii. 28, 29 (probably transposing υίδς, and using the dative instead of κατά or εlς), (α) λέγω υμ7v oτι πάντα άφεθησεται τo7ς υio7s τών ανθρώπων τά αμαρτήματα και αί βλασφημίαι οσα εάν βλασφημήσωσι ; (δ) δs δ’ άν βλασφημήση εις τδ πνεύμα τδ άγιον ούκ εχει όφεσιν εις τδν αιώνα. Even those who may reject this explanation of the άπαξ λεγόμενον in Mark will probably feel that this passage, and all those previously quoted, point to some original tradition (whether written or oral) upon which our three synoptic Gospels are based. These then are the results to which (so far) we are led :—(1) Mark certainly did not borrow from Matthew and Luke; (2) Matthew and Luke, though clearly influenced by some form of Mark, yet probably borrowed, not from Mark, but from some original tradition upon which Mark also is based. The Nature of the Triple Tradition.— What was the original tradition upon which our three synoptic Gospels are based? Was it Aramaic or Greek? oral or written? single or manifold? Did the earliest of our synoptists receive it fresh from its first source, or after it had passed through many recensions? Few or none of these questions (to some of which reference will be made hereafter) can be answered with absolute certainty; but it is evident that, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all based upon an earlier original tradition, then those words and phrases which are common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (to which we have given the name of the Triple Tradition) must have a peculiar weight, as approximating to the original tradition itself. If it be found that these scattered words and phrases make up of themselves an almost continuous narrative, we may fairly suppose that we are approximating very closely indeed to the original tradition. We shall not expect to find a perfectly continuous narrative. On the contrary, a perfectly continuous narrative, identical in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, would imply, not a floating early variable tradition, but a document simply copied by the authors of our Gospels. An early tradition, circulated perhaps in various churches, iu Antioch, in Rome, in Ephesus, in Corinth, before being embodied in a document, will naturally have been modified, supplemented, and sometimes (as above) confused. Mere especially in certain unimportant and constantly recurring words and phrases we may expect variations. The words “said,” “answered,” “went,” “journeyed,” “asked,” “questioned,” “tempted,” “refused,” “rebuked,” &c., may naturally be expected to differ in the three versions. But greater differences will soon arise. One version will lay greater stress on the details of miracles; another on the relations between Jesus and John the Baptist; another on the law; another on the forgiveness of sins; and this varying emphasis will produce certain modifications of the original tradition. Again, in the early times of the church, the Greek of slaves and freedmen may pass without offence; but in later times an editor of the Gospel, writ ing for readers of higher rank and better education, will ] (η) The following is another case of difference in the grammatical subject of the verb; the resemblance will appear demonstrative proof of confusion to those who compare the context, and who also remember that aκoλoυθε7v is used habitually of others following Jesus, but not of Jesus following others.

(1) Matt. ix. 19, Kαl εγεpθεls <5 Ιησούς ηκoλoυθeι aυτφ.

(2) Mk. V. 24, Kαl aπηλθεv μετ’ αύτού, καί ήκολούθει aυτcρ όχλος πολύς.

(θ) In the following there is a curious confusion from the omission of some words by Luke, so that what is the apodosis in Matthew becomes the protasis in Luke :—

(1) Matt. xii. 26, Kαl el δ 2αταyαs [τδv 1,aτavav ^κj8aλλε<], έφ' εaυτδv έμερίσθη-πώς [o5vj στaθησeτaι ή βασιλεία αύτού ;

(2) Lu. xi. 18, εί δε καί δ Σατανάς έφ’ εaυτδv διeμeρiσθη, πωs σταθησεται ή βασιλεία αύτου;

(t) The following suggests that some Aramaic word meaning to “question” and to “try” or “tempt” may have been diversely rendered by—

(1) Matt. xii. 10, Kαl επηρώτησαν αυτόν, λέγοντες el εξεστι θεpaπευeιv.

(2) Lu. vi. 7, X ∖ apeτηρoυvτo δε αύτδν el θερaπeυeι.

(κ) (1) Matt, xxvii. 49, Oi δe λoiπoι eλeyov, ,, Aφeς, ίδωμεν el eρχeτaι , Hλ(αs σώσων αυτόν.

(2) Mk. XV. 36, λέγων, "∆φeτε , ίδωμεν el έρχεται ’ Hλ'ιaς κaθελε7v αυτόν.

Here (1) in Matthew the bystanders address the man who brings the drink to Jesus; but (2) in Mark the man addresses the bystanders. In (1) the meaning is “desist from giving the drink;” in (2) it appears to be “desist from mocking.” But in any case, the meaning differs in Matthew and Mark.

Many other instances might be given (e.g., Mat. xiv. 2;

Mk. vi. 16; Lu. ix. 9:...