resolves Mark's compound verbs, and replaces by terms in current use the rather unusual expressions intro- duced Ijy Mark, etc. (vi) He is free from the lack of precision wliich, to a slight extent, characterizes Mark. Thus, Matthew says " the tetrarch " and not " the king " as Mark does, in speaking of Herod Antipas; "on the third day" instead of " in three days". At times the changes are more important. Instead of "Levi, son of Alpheus," he says: "a man named Matthew"; he mentions two demoniacs and two blind persons, whereas Mark mentions only one of each, etc. (vii) Matthew extenuates or omits everything which, in Mark, might be construed in a sense'derogatory to the Person of Christ or unfavourable to the disciples. Thus, in speaking of Jesus, he suppresses the following phrases: "And looking round about on them with anger" (Mark, iii, 5); "And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is beside himself" (Mark, iii. 21), etc. Speaking of the disciples, he does not say, like Mark, that "they understood not the word, and they were afraid to ask him" (ix, .31; cf. viii, 17, 18); or that the disciples were in a state of profound amazement, be- cause "they understood not concerning the loaves; for their heart was blinded" (vi, F>2), etc. He likewise omits whatever might shock his readers, as the saying of the Lord recorded by Mark: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (ii, 27). Omissions or alterations of this kind are very numer- ous. It must, however, be remarked that between Matthew and Mark there are many points of resem- blance in the construction of sentences (Matt., ix, 6 = Mark, ii, 10; Matt., xxvi, 47 = Mark, xiv, 43, etc.); in their mode of expression, often unusual, and in short phrases (Matt., ix, 16 = Mark, ii, 21; Matt., xvi, 28 = Mark, ix, 1; Matt., xx, 25 = Mark, x, 42); in some pericopes, narratives, or discourses, where the greater part of the terms are identical (Matt., iv, 18-22 = Mark, i, 16-20; Matt., xxvi, 36-38 = Mark, xiv, 32- . 34; Matt., ix, 5, 6 = Mark, ii, 9-11), etc. (Cf. Haw- kins, "Horae synopticse", pp. 54-67.)
(b) Analogy to Luke. — A comparison of Matthew and Luke reveals that they have but one narrative in common, viz., the cure of the centurion's servant (Matt., viii, 5-13 = Luke, vii, 1-10). The additional matter common to these Evangelists, consists of the discourses and sayings of Christ. In Matthew His dis- courses are usually gathered together, whereas in Luke they are more frequently scattered. Nevertheless, Matthew and Luke have in common the following dis- courses: the Sermon on the Mount (Matt., v-vii = the Sermon in the Plain, Luke, vi) ; the Lord's exhor- tation to His disciples whom He sends forth on a mis- sion(Matt.,x, 19-20,2(1-33 = Luke,xii, 11-12,2-9); the discourse on John the Baptist (Matt., xi = Luke, vii) ; the discourse on the Last Judgment (Matt., xxiv = Luke, xvii) . Moreover, these two Evangelists possess in common a large number of detached sentences, e. g., Matt., iii, 7b-10, 12 = Luke, iii, 7b-9, 17; Matt., iv, 3-11 = Luke, iv, 3-13; Matt., ix, 37, 38 = Luke, x, 2; Matt., xii, 43-45 = Luke, xi, 24-26, etc. (cf. Rush- brooke, "Synopticon", pp. 134-70). However, in these parallel passages of Matthew and Luke there are numerous differences of expression, and even some divergences in ideas or in the manner of their presen- tation. It is only necessary to recall the Beatitudes (Matt.,- v, 3-12 ■= Luke, vi, 20b-25): in Matthew there are eight beatitudes, whereas in Luke there are only four, which, while approximating to Matthew's in point of conception, differ from them in general form and expression. In addition to having in com- mon parts that Mark has not, Matthew and Luke some- times agree against Mark in parallel narratives. There have been counteil 240 passages wherein Matthew and Luke harmonize with each other, but disagree with Mark in the way of presenting events, and particularly in the use of the same terms and the .same grammatical
emendations. Matthew and Luke omit the verv peri- copes that occur in Mark.
(c) Parts peculiar to Matthew.— These are numer- ous, as Matthew has 330 verses that are distinctly his own. Sometimes long passages occur, such as tho.se recordmg the Nativity and early Childhood (i, ii), the cure of the two blind men and one dumb man (ix, 27- 34), the death of Judas (xxvii, 3-10), the guard placed at the Sepulchre (xxvii, 62-66), the impo.sture of the chief priests (xxviii, 11-15), the apparition of Jesus in Gahlee (xxviii, 16-20), a great portion of the Sermon on the Mount (v, 17-37; vi, 1-8; vii, 12-23), parables (xiii, 24-30; 35-53; xxv, 1-13), the Last Judgment (xxv, 31-46), etc., and sometimes detached sentences, as in xxiii, 3, 28, 33; xxvii, 25, etc. (cf . Rushbrooke, "Synopticon", pp. 171-97). Those passages in which Matthew reminds us that facts in the life of Jesus are the fulfilment of the prophecies, are likewise noted as peculiar to him, but of this we have already spoken.
These various considerations have given rise to a great number of hj-potheses, varying in detail, but agreeing fundamentally. According to the majority of present critics — H. Holtzmann, Wendt, Julicher, Wernle, von Soden, Wellhausen, Harnack, B. Weiss, Nicolardot, W. Allen, Montefiore, Plummer, and Stan- ton — the author of the First Gospel used two docu- ments: the Gospel of Mark in its present or in an earlier form, and a collection of discourses or sayings, which is designated by the letter Q. The repetitions occurring in Matthew (v, 29, 30 = xviii, 8, 9; v, 32= xix, 9; X, 22a = xxiv, 9b; xii, 39b = xvi, 4a, etc.) may be explained by the fact that two sources fur- nished the writer with material for liis Gospel. Fur- thermore, Matthew used documents of his own. In this hypothesis the Greek Gospel is supposed to l)e original, and not the translation of a complete .Ara- maic Gospel. It is admitted that the collection of sayings was originally Aramaic, but it is dispvited whether the EvangeUst had it in this form or in that of a Greek translation. Critics also differ regarding the manner in which Matthew used the sources. Some would have it that Matthew the Apostle was not the author of the First Gospel, but merely the collector of the sayings of Christ mentioned by Papias. " How- ever", saj's Julicher, "the author's individuality is so strikingly evident in his style and tendencies that it is impossible to consider the Gospel a men; compila- tion ". Most critics are of a like opinion. Endeavours have been made to reconcile the information furnished by tradition with the facts resulting from the study of the Gospel as follows: Matthew was known to have collected in Aramaic the sayings of Christ, and, on the other hand, there existed at the beginning of the sec- ond century a Gospel containing the narrativi^s found in Mark and the sayings gathered by Matthew in .\ra- maic. It is held that the Greek Gospel ascril)ed to Matthew is a translation of it, made by him or by other translators whose names it was later attempted to ascertain.
To safeguard tradition further, while taking into consideration the facts we have already noted, it might be supposed that the three Synoptists workeil upon the same catechesis, either oral or written and originally in Aramaic, and that they had detached portions of tliis catechesis, varying in literary condi- tion. The divergences may be explained first by this latter fact, and then by the hypothesis of dilTcrent translations and by each Evangelist 's peculiar met hod of treating the subject-matter, Matthew anil Luke especially having adapted it to the purpo.se of their Gospel. There is nuthing to prevent the supposition that Matthew worked on the .\ramaic catechesis; the literary emendations of Mark's text by Matthew may have been due to the translator, who was more con- versant with (ireek than was the popvdar preacher who furnished the catechesis repro<luc(>d by Mark. In reality, the only difficulty lies in explaining the siini-