HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES IN 
 
 LITERATURE RELATED TO THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 SECOND SERIES— VOLUME IV, PART 2 
 
 The Sources of Luke's 
 Passion- Narrative 
 
 By 
 ALFRED MORRIS PERRY 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 
 
 
 THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY, New York 
 THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, London and Edinburgh 
 HE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA, Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Fukuoka, Sendai 
 THE MISSION BOOK COMPANY, Shanghai 
 
LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 
 Seciio 
 
The Sources of Luke's 
 Passion-Narrative 
 
The Sources of Luke's 
 Passion- Narrative 
 
 JAIvl 
 
 
 By 
 
 1/ 
 
 ALFRED MORRIS PERRY 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 
 
Copyright 1920 By 
 The UNrvERsiTY of Chicago 
 
 AU Rights Reserved 
 
 Published January igao 
 
 Biblical text of the American Revised Version used by 
 permission of Thomas Nelson & Sons 
 
 Composed and Printed By 
 
 The University of Chicago Press 
 
 Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 
 The author desires to express here his gratitude to the Faculty of the 
 Department of New Testament and Early Christian Literature in the 
 University of Chicago for their interest and assistance in the course 
 of this study, and especially to Professor Ernest DeWitt Burton, under 
 whose direction and with the benefit of whose help and criticism this 
 study has been pursued, and also to the faculty of the Hartford Theolo- 
 gical Seminary and to the donor of the John S. Welles Fellowship, who 
 have encouraged and made possible this investigation. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction i 
 
 The Problem of Luke's Passion-Narrative, i ; Limits of the Investi- 
 gation, 2; The Possibility of Textual Corruption, 2; Lack of Par- 
 allel Material in the First Gospel, 4. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. The Literary Method of the Third Evangelist .... 5 
 
 Purpose and Chief Interest, 5 ; Luke's Use of His Markan Source, 6; 
 The Other Principal Sources of the Third Gospel, 8; Luke's Use of 
 His Non-Markan Sources, 13 ; Editorial Additions by the Evangelist, 
 15; Doublets, 17; The Principles of Luke's Literary Procedure, 19. 
 
 II. Literary Phenomena of the Passion-Narrative in Luke . 21 
 Limits of Agreement with Mark, 21 ; Additions and Omissions in the 
 Narrative, 23; Transpositions of the Order of the Narrative, 24; 
 Interweaving and Conflation, 25; Sources of the Non-Markan 
 Materials, 26. 
 
 III. The Non-Markan Materials in the Passion-Narrative . . 31 
 Classes of Materials, 31; Discriminating Principles, 32; Initial 
 Section, 19:1-27, 33; Jesus' Public Ministry in Jerusalem, 33; The 
 Apocalyptic Discourse, 35; The Last Supper and the Farewell 
 Discourse, 38 ; Events Connected with the Arrest of Jesus, 42 ; The 
 Trial of Jesus, 44; Jesus' Death and Burial, 47; The Resurrection 
 Appearances, 51; Conclusions, 54. 
 
 IV. The Independence of the J Materials 56 
 
 Vocabulary, 56; Synonyms, 59; Literary Style, 62; Syntax, 64; 
 Lukan Characteristics, 66; Semitic Idiom, 67; Thought and View- 
 point, 70; The Narrative of Luke 19: 1-27, 75. 
 
 V. The Literary Characteristics of the Jerusalem Source . 77 
 Unity: in General, 77; in Detail, 83; Literary Form: a Written 
 Document, 85; Greek Its Language, 86; Content and Order, 86. 
 
 VI. The Relations of the Jerusalem Source 90 
 
 Provenance and Author, 90; Date, 92; The Fall of Jerusalem, 
 96; Purpose and Historical Value, 98; Literary Relations: to 
 Other Liian Sources, 100; to Mark, loi; to Matthew, 102; to the 
 Fourth Gospel, 103; Conclusion, 105. 
 
 Appendix I 
 
 The Agreements and Divergences of Luke's Passion-Narrative with 
 Mark 107 
 
 Appendix II 
 
 Vocabulary of the Jerusalem Document no 
 
 Appendix III 
 
 Text of the Jerusalem Source 116 
 
 vii 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 In the stream of the hterary criticism of the Synoptic Gospels the 
 teachings of Jesus and the central portion of his ministry have been 
 borne along upon the full flood, and many have been the reconstructions of 
 that algebraic ''x" of the synoptic problem, the ever-elusive Q, and many 
 the discussions of the nature and value of the source from which the first 
 and the third evangelists drew their account of Jesus' teachings; but 
 the culminating portion of the Gospels, the great event which was central 
 in the evangel of the one great hterary apostle, has been becalmed, as 
 it were, in an unstirred eddy apart from the great currents of discussion. 
 Whatever the reasons for this neglect, whether the failure here of the 
 major criterion of synoptic criticism — materials common to the First and 
 the Third Gospel only — or merely the too ready assumption that there 
 are here no materials demanding attention, the fact remains that the 
 literary critic generally has had httle or nothing to tell concerning the 
 narrative of the Passion. 
 
 Since the days of Wilke,' to be sure, it has often been observed that 
 the Passion-narrative of the Third Gospel presents striking additions to 
 and corrections of the Markan version ; but these divergences have either 
 been minimized, as by Wilke himself,^ or else they have been treated 
 singly, as by Holtzmann^ and others, and their full import collectively 
 
 ' C. G. Wilke, Der Urevangelist (1838), pp. 482 f. "Faktum ist dass bis n. 34 [Mark 
 10: 13-16 and parallels], kein Stiick vorkommt, das von den Referenten in vollig 
 
 gleicher Form und mit denselben Geschichtsmomenten gegeben ware Von 
 
 n. 50 bis 57 [Mark 14: i to end and parallels! aber gibt Lukas fast durchgangig eigen-: 
 tumliche Darstellungen. " 
 
 ^ Ibid., p. 540: "In der letzten Geschichte Jesu, worin Lukas am meisten von 
 den Nebenberichten abweicht, zeigt an dem, was er mit den Nebenzahlem zugleich 
 firwahnt, theils die Ordnung und Stellung, dass er demselben Leitfaden folgte mit 
 jenen, theils an gewissen Stellen die Fassung des Ausdrucks, dass er mit seinen Nach- 
 barreferenten die gleiche griechische Textvorlage gehabt haben miisse, so wie es sich 
 nicht verbirgt, dass er nach schriftstellerischen Zwecken und nach seiner Weise 
 abgeandert." 
 
 3 H. J. Holtzmann, Die synoptische Evangelien (1863), p. 210: "In den drei 
 letzten Capiteln des Evangeliums ist dagegen der urspriingliche Bericht so vielfach 
 und durch so eigentiimliche Relationen modificirt, dass man die Erzahlung des Lucas 
 sogar schon in ganz andere Abteilungen zerlegen und aus anderen Quellen ableiten 
 woUte, als die Seitenberichte. Das aber auch hier der Leitfaden bei alien Dreien 
 derselbe ist, hat schon Wilke erwiesen." And cf. also pp. 237 ff. So, most recently, 
 Wellhausen, Das Evangeliiim Lucae (1904). 
 
 71] 1 
 
2 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 has not been observed. There are, however, exceptions to this rule, 
 and some scholars have pointed out the fact that there might be here 
 materials awaiting more thorough analysis. So Sir John Hawkins' 
 has shown that, while the Passion-narrative of Luke (beginning at 
 Luke 22:14, with the account of the Last Supper) is but two-fifths as 
 long as the remaining portions of the Lukan narrative derived from 
 Mark, there is twice as much addition of new material, nearly twice as 
 many inversions of the Markan order, and but half as much agreement 
 with the Markan language. And Burkitt'' even ventures the suggestion 
 y that this portion of Luke's narrative is derived almost wholly from a 
 non-Markan source. 
 
 It must then be apparent that there are here facts sufficiently im- 
 portant to warrant serious investigation; the more so since the demon- 
 stration of a second independent source of the Passion history might have 
 considerable significance in other departments of gospel study. To 
 this investigation it is the purpose of this study to turn, but to deal 
 with a single phase of the problem only, the question what are the sources 
 \^of the narrative in the Third Gospel of Jesus' ministry and Passion in 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 The limits of the investigation must be set more widely, however, 
 than those assumed by Hawkins and Burkitt, and the entire closing 
 section of the Gospel, from the point (Luke 19: i) where Jesus begins to 
 approach Jerusalem to the close, must be considered in the discussion. 
 To this entire section, Luke 19:1 — 24:53, will be applied the term 
 " Passion-narrative. " 
 
 Two limitations upon the study must here be noted. The first of 
 these is the impossibility of attaining mathematically accurate results 
 in any study of the synoptic problem, a fact that is self-evident in 
 itself to anyone who will consider for a moment the fact of textual 
 corruption, yet one that is only too often quite overlooked in attempts 
 at a solution of the problem. Allowance must be made for a considerable 
 margin of error, not only in the minor details of the text, but even in the 
 larger features of the narrative. When we consider that until the rise 
 of the canonical concept in the age of Irenaeus and TertulUan the Gospels 
 were valued in large part for the authority of the words of the Lord which 
 they contained, and that even Tatian could treat them with a consider- 
 
 ' W. Sanday, ed., Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 76-94. For a more 
 detailed study of the differences and a theory of their origin see P. Peine, Eine vor- 
 kanonische Ueberlieferung des Lukas (1891), passim. 
 
 ' F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission, p. 134. 
 
 72 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE S PASSION-NARRATIVE 6 
 
 able degree of freedom in interweaving, editing, and even in the omission 
 of uncongenial passages, it must at once be clear that the processes of 
 textual corruption and of general adaptation must have gone on at 
 a far more accelerated pace than in the subsequent period through 
 which we are able to trace the textual history. 
 
 It is to be expected, therefore, that omissions, additions, and other 
 changes be found which are assignable to alterations of the narrative 
 after it had left the hands of that editor in whose mind it first received 
 its general outline, and whom we are accustomed to call the evangelist. 
 On the textual side, in particular, these may sometimes be of considerable 
 importance, and we may note especially the ever-present possibility of 
 harmonistic corruption by which two accounts are brought into a closer 
 agreement than they originally had. The received text is full of examples 
 of this sort of thing which subsequent editors have agreed in eliminat- 
 ing ; it is scarcely necessary to refer to examples, whether of the addition 
 of materials from a parallel account in another Gospel (as in Matt. 
 23:14; 17:21; Luke 8:45; and the expansion of Luke's version of the 
 Lord's Prayer, Luke 11:2-4) or of the revision of the language to that 
 of a parallel account (as in Matt. 19:17; Luke 6:48; 10:27). Occasion- 
 ally, too, this corruption may have taken the reverse course, and, 
 become a differentiating corruption, have destroyed a parallelism which 
 once existed, a fact which becomes of importance in the explanation of 
 some (though by no means of all) of the slight agreements of Matthew 
 with Luke in the triple tradition. Thus it is simplest to suppose that 
 in Mark 5 : 28 the words rod Kpaa-Kebov, which appear in both the 
 Matthew and the Luke parallel, are really the original reading of Mark 
 also, and were lost in the transmission of the text subsequent to the 
 production of the exemplars used by the first and the third evangelists; 
 and similar instances appear in Mark 2:12: 3: 18; 4:11; 9:19; etc. 
 
 These facts, of textual corruption and of general fluidity of the early 
 gospel transmission, have a twofold bearing upon our study. First, 
 they cast upon all conclusions a shadow of insecurity. Yet this uncer- 
 tainty must not be exaggerated, for nothing is more striking than the 
 manner in which the Gospels have preserved their individuality and their 
 distinctive differences; the insecurity, after all, amounts to but a small 
 margin of error, and the general facts of the synoptic problem stand out 
 unaltered by such considerations. On the other hand this margin of 
 error has its favorable aspect, inasmuch as it relieves the critic from the 
 necessity of explaining every minute exception to the generally appli- 
 cable rules. In both of these aspects, however, the fact of sUght textual 
 
 73 
 
4 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 uncertainty must stand in the background of every discussion of the 
 synoptic problem. 
 
 A second limitation, of a different nature, is imposed by the fact 
 that within the limits of this study the Third Gospel shares with the 
 First Gospel practically no material not derived from Mark, and the 
 investigation must proceed from the observation of the evangelist's 
 literary method of dealing with his sources, as it can be determined from 
 other portions of his work, to the inference as to what must have been 
 the sources employed in his narrative of the closing period of Jesus' 
 ministry. Our first task, therefore, must be the determination of Luke's 
 literary method, from which we may go on to the description of the lit- 
 erary phenomena of the Passion-narrative, and then to the inference as 
 to the sources there used and the description of those sources. 
 
 74 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE LITERARY METHOD OF THE THIRD EVANGELIST 
 
 I. PURPOSE AND CHIEF INTEREST 
 
 In the preface to his work the third evangeUst states clearly what 
 is his purpose in the compilation of his Gospel — "having traced the course 
 of all things accurately from the first, to write in order" "a, narrative 
 concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us" "that 
 thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou 
 wast instructed." Thus plainly he avows an interest in history; he 
 has investigated the facts to the extent of his ability and would now set 
 them forth with the conscientious care of the historian. But, while 
 his purpose is to write history, his ultimate motive is that of "edifi-- 
 cation"; only he believes that faith rests most securely upon fact and 
 rehes confidently upon the historical basis of Christianity. The domi- 
 nant interest of his Gospel, therefore, is to be the narration of facts, 
 the presentation of history. 
 
 The working of this interest is apparent throughout the Gospel. 
 It is necessary only to compare Luke's arrangement of materials in 
 narrative form with the topical arrangement which Matthew chose to 
 adopt to be convinced of its reality. And it appears also in the almost 
 labored endeavor of the evangelist to fix as accurately as might be the 
 location in history of the events he narrates, as in his elaborate chronolo- 
 gies in Luke 1:5; 2:1-2; 3:1-2, and his correction of such errors in 
 Mark as the reference to "Abiathar the high-priest" (Mark 2:26; 
 cf. Luke 6:4) or to Herod Antipas as "king" (Mark 6:14; cf. Luke 
 
 9:7)- 
 
 The consequences of this historical interest for the present study 
 
 must not be overlooked. It means that we shall find no topical arrange- 
 ment, but rather an endeavor to fix events in their proper sequence,*- 
 and that in the use of his sources the evangehst will employ them in 
 their original order unless he has a definite reason for believing that order 
 to be incorrect. Where two sources have divergent accounts of the 
 same event he is perhaps more hkely to compare the two accounts and 
 select that which seems the more reliable than to attempt to preserve 
 all the edifying details of both accounts. These phenomena all appear 
 plainly in his actual Uterary procedure. 
 75] 5 
 
b HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 II. Luke's use of his markan source 
 
 It is unnecessary to present arguments for the use of a document 
 closely resembling our present Gospel of Mark as a common source of 
 much of Matthew and Luke. The facts that in the Triple Tradition 
 Matthew quite largely and Luke almost wholly agree with Mark in 
 the order of the incidents related, and that in language, although each 
 agrees with Mark in about half of its words, their common agreements 
 against Mark are very few and usually mere coincidences — these make 
 it impossible to avoid the generally accepted conclusion that in our 
 Second Gospel we possess a close approximation to the source docu- 
 ment which furnished both Matthew and Luke with the general outline 
 of their narrations and with much of the linguistic form.^ It is proper, 
 however, to review briefly the manner in which the third evangelist 
 employs this source. 
 
 First, it is at once apparent that he endeavored to preserve as far 
 as possible its original order. Of the thirty-eight sections^ which, up 
 to Luke 19:1, seem to have been drawn from the Markan source, only 
 three (Luke 3:19-20; 6:12-16; 8:19-21) occupy a position different 
 from that of the parallel section in Mark, and two of these are the two 
 sections which introduce and conclude the ''Lesser Interpolation" of 
 materials from another source. 
 
 Secondly, the Markan materials are inserted in blocks, usually of 
 considerable extent. After a few introductory materials, brought in 
 of necessity, just where the narrative demands (Luke 3:3-4, 16, 19-22; 
 4:1-2), Luke inserts the rest of his Markan materials, up to the Passion- 
 week, in four large blocks (Luke 4:31-44; 5:12 — 6:19; 8:4 — 9:50; 
 18:15-43). A few parallels to Markan sections do appear elsewhere; 
 but it would seem, from considerations later to be urged, that these are 
 in reality "doublets," and were drawn by Luke from another source. 
 Yet there are a few exceptions to this rule, cases where a conflation of 
 two narratives seems to have taken place. The first of these is the use 
 of a verse of Markan materials, Luke 3:16, in the midst of the non- 
 Markan materials of the preaching of the Baptist, in a form slightly 
 influenced by the non-Markan construction which appears more clearly 
 
 ' Interesting corroborative evidence, external to the documents, might be drawn 
 from Hamack's observation {Luke the Physician, pp. 17 ff.; Lukas der Arzt, pp. 13 f.) 
 that Luke was personally acquainted with John Mark; cf. Col. 4:10, 14; Philem. 
 24; II Tim. 4:11. 
 
 * In E. D. Burton and E. J. Goodspeed, Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. ix- 
 xiv. 
 
 76 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 7 
 
 in the Matthew parallel (3:11). The only other instances of any impor- 
 tance are the addition of one verse of non-Markan materials (Luke 5 :39), 
 and the possible substitution of another (Luke 5:36) in the parables of 
 the Garment and of the Wine-skins, and the addition of a bit of detail 
 (Luke 9:31-32) in the story of the transfiguration. 
 
 Thirdly, Luke gives full historical value to the order of the Markan' 
 narrative, except where he replaces it by a different version of the same 
 event, as in the rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4: 16-30; cf. Mark 6:1-6), 
 the call of the first disciples (Luke 5:1-11; cf . Mark 1:16-20), or the 
 charge of exorcism by Beelzebub (Luke 11:14-23; cf, Mark 3:22-30); 
 and in following the Markan source he is careful to preserve unchanged 
 the chronological connection or want of connection between various 
 incidents.' 
 
 Fourthly, m his use of the language of his source, the third evangelist 
 is apparently quite free. Hawkins' figures' show that in the Triple 
 Tradition as far as Luke 23: 13, 53 per cent of the words in Luke, 2,829 
 words out of a total of 5,320, are paralleled in Mark. Thus there is 
 considerable freedom of treatment in the details of the narrative. This 
 takes the form mainly of improvement of the rather rough language of 
 Mark, smoothing out the details of the narrative, or slight condensation, 
 or abridgment; only occasionally is there expansion, and there are very 
 few cases where the changes involve the addition of any really new detail 
 to the picture. 
 
 * Of the thirty-eight Mark-parallel sections, in only three is there any change of 
 the Markan data, namely in Luke 9: 28, 37, 43. Cf. also V. H. Stanton, The Gospels 
 as Historical Documents, II, 228: "Now it should be observed that in parallels with 
 St. Mark, our third evangelist is careful not to create connexions in time which he 
 did not find in his source. He does not take the juxtaposition of narratives to imply 
 immediate sequence of time as our first evangeUst often does. On the contrary, three 
 times at least he has employed phrases which seem expressly designed to shew that 
 this is not to be inferred. (Cf. Mark 2:1 with Luke 5:17; Mark 3: i with Luke 6:6; 
 Mark 3:13 with Luke 6:12; Mark 2:13 and Luke 5:27 might I think be added to 
 these, but some may be of the opinion that /ierd ravra here in Luke is not less ambigu- 
 ous than Mark's waXiv.) Further, where he has introduced sections into the Markan 
 context or changed the order, he has generally (except at 4:31) been careful to refrain 
 from suggesting a close temporal connexion. Plainly none is indicated at 5: i and 12. 
 Again the insertions at 4:16 and 5:1 follow references to periods of activity, not to 
 particular events; while the crossing of the Lake at Luke 8: 22 fi^., which does not as in 
 St. Mark immediately follow the Teaching by Parables, is said to have happened 'on 
 one of those days.' From Luke's procedure in regard to his Markan document in this 
 respect we may surely learn how he would be likely to treat another document." 
 
 ' Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 77-78. 
 
 77 
 
8 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 However, this treatment of the language is not uniform within the 
 section. The examination of a few sample sections, chosen practically 
 at random (Luke 4:31-44; 5:17-26; 8:40-56; 9:11-17; 9:28-36; 
 9:37-43)5 will show that in nearly every case the introductory, and often 
 the concluding, sentence is handled with the greatest degree of freedom, 
 the body of the narrative approaches the average for the whole of the 
 Triple Tradition, and the words of Jesus are quoted the most exactly. 
 Thus, of the 146 words of introduction in the sections named above, 
 36, or 25 per cent, have parallels in Mark; of the 874 words in the body 
 of the narratives, 395, or 45 per cent, have Markan parallels; of the 120 
 words of discourse, 90, or 75 per cent ; and of the 1 19 words of conclusion, 
 42, or 35 per cent, are paralleled in Mark/ 
 
 Next in importance to the identity of words in the sentence must 
 stand agreement in the order of the words, even where synonymous 
 words or phrases appear in the parallel accounts. Here a similar rule 
 applies, though the phenomenon is more difficult to measure. In the 
 passages selected above, in the discourse the order of words is the same 
 in both Mark and Luke, in the body of the narratives it is often but not 
 always the same, and in the introductions and conclusions it may 
 frequently be quite different. 
 
 III. THE OTHER PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF THE THIRD GOSPEL 
 
 In the description of the other principal source or sources of the 
 Third Gospel there is no such agreement among critics as in the case of 
 the general opinion that a document very similar to our Second Gospel 
 was the first main source. Yet here too it is granted by nearly all 
 scholars that the nature of this source must be determined primarily 
 from the non-Markan materials in which the First and Third Gospels 
 show agreement. These are generally supposed to form the nucleus, 
 if not the whole, of the source commonly designated as "Q," which is 
 thus discriminated by the purely mechanical method of collecting the 
 materials for which Matthew and Luke must have had a common source 
 other than the Markan document. 
 
 With the method of this discrimination there can be no quarrel; 
 the mechanical process is such as to free the critic largely from predis- 
 positions and the danger of misjudgment, and it must always be the 
 first employed wherever possible. While the method is correct, however, 
 
 ' Cf. B. F. Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels (7th ed., 1888), 
 pp. 198 f.; and Stanton, op. cit., II, 278 fif. 
 
 78 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 9 
 
 it may be that its application has not been suflEiciently rigorous. Thus 
 it is a fact familiar to all that this material is embodied in Luke's Gospel 
 mainly in two blocks of material (Luke 6:20 — 8:3; 9:51 — 18: 14), while 
 in Matthew's it is inserted ad libitum into the general framework of his 
 argument in small fragments. Does not this fact suggest that, imtil 
 it can be proved that the two Lukan blocks are homogeneous and parts 
 of the same whole, it is necessary further to analyze the common materials 
 into two groups: those which Matthew shares with the earUer portions 
 of Luke, and those common to Matthew and to Luke's Great Interpo- 
 lation ? It might be that the two sections of these common materials, 
 thus discriminated on grounds of purely mechanical nature, would later 
 appear to possess such internal unity that they must be again reunited ; 
 but in point of fact the analysis brings to light still further points of 
 difference. 
 
 First, the materials common to Luke's ''Galilean ministry" and to 
 Matthew appear in both Gospels, section for section, in the same order.* 
 
 These sections are: 
 
 The Preaching of John (Luke 3:7-9, 17; Matt. 3:7-10, 12). 
 
 The Temptation (Luke 4:3-13; Matt. 4:3-11). 
 
 The Beatitudes (Luke 6:20-23; Matt. 5:2-12). 
 
 On the Law of Love (Luke 6: 27-36; Matt. 5:39-48). 
 
 On Judging (Luke 6:37-42; Matt. 7:1-5). 
 
 On Doing Righteousness (Luke 6:43-49; Matt. 7:16-27). 
 
 The Healing of the Centurion's Servant (Luke 7: i-io; Matt. 8: 5-13). 
 
 Discourse on John the Baptist (Luke 7 : 18-35; Matt. 11 : 2-19). 
 
 In these eight sections, comprising in Luke 71 verses at the least, 
 there are but 4 verses (Luke 6:31 = Matt. 7:12; Luke 6: 39 = Matt. 
 15:14; Luke 6: 40 = Matt. 10:24; and Luke 6: 45 = Matt. 12:35) which 
 have parallels in Matthew outside the limits of the corresponding 
 section, and to the first of these there is a parallel within the Sermon 
 on the Mount. These are all words of Jesus, and similar transposition 
 of Markan "Logia" in Matthew may be instanced;^ these exceptions, 
 therefore, are not sufficient to offset the fact that in the use of this 
 source, or this section of the Q source, Luke and Matthew practically 
 agree in order throughout. 
 
 ' Cf . Hamack, The Sayings of Jesus, pp. 1 72 f . ; Sprite he und Reden Jesu, pp. 1 2 1 f . 
 
 ' Cf. Mark 4:2i = Matt. 5:15; Mark 9:43-48 = Matt. 5:29-30, 18:8-9; Mark 
 9:4i = Matt. 10:42; Mark 10:15 = Matt. 18:3; Mark 11: 25 = Matt, 6:14. 
 
 79 
 
10 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 However, no such agreement in order can be traced through the 
 remaining portion of the common materials ;' they are scattered in widely 
 divergent order through Luke's Great Interpolation and through Matthew 
 alike. The question must therefore be raised whether it is not more 
 likely that these were two sources than that Matthew adopted a different 
 method of using his source at the very point where Luke broke it in two. 
 
 Secondly, there are not wanting diversities in the literary character- 
 istics of the two groups of material. It has been noted by Burton' 
 that the former group has "a marked uniformity in general literary 
 character. The narratives are all vividly told, surpassing in this respect 
 even the vivid narratives of Mark, and in literary style reaching the 
 high- water mark of this Gospel." But the character of the second 
 group is quite dififerent. Where the former has a large degree of interest 
 in narrative, the latter contains little but discourse material ;3 the vivid- 
 ness and definiteness of the former group are in marked contrast to the 
 indefiniteness of the latter ;'» where the former quotes the Old Testa- 
 ment explicitly (six times), the latter has reflections of Old Testament 
 language (twelve such, against one in the "Galilean" portion) and 
 references to Old Testament characters and cities. Certain linguistic 
 differences also appear. The former group describes Jesus always as 
 Tios Tov GeoG, the latter generally as Tios rod avdpooTrov; and the phrases 
 Bao-iXeta rod Qeov and avrr] ri Yei'ed are characteristic chiefly of the latter 
 group. 
 
 Thirdly, there is a similar diversity in the thought-content and point 
 of view. For the former group, the "Galilean" portion in Luke, the 
 
 ' Cf. Harnack on the order of Q, Sayings of Jesus, pp. 178-79 (Spriiche und 
 Reden Jesu, pp. 1 25-26). Of the remaining sections of Q, Harnack traces similarity of 
 order in only twenty-one sections in all (p. 178), and this in two overlapping series; 
 while of the other twenty-seven sections he observes that they "do not admit of being 
 arranged in a de6nite order" (p. 179). On the order of the materials of Matthew's 
 Sermon on the Mount which are paralleled in Luke's Great Interpolation, he remarks 
 (p. 176), "This is hopeless; for it is simply impossible to trace any sign of correspond- 
 ence in order of the parallel passages. " 
 
 ' Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic Problem (Chicago, 1904), p. 43. 
 
 3 The first contains three narratives, and three narratives containing dialogue, and 
 one (perhaps three) paragraphs with narrative introduction; but the second contains 
 no true narratives, but one narrative containing dialogue, and sixteen paragraphs with 
 narrative introduction and twenty-one sections of straight discourse. 
 
 ■• The former gives personal names, geographical and chronological references, 
 and details of the situation, and exaggerates numbers and areas to gain vividness, 
 while the latter omits these even where they might be expected to appear. 
 
 80 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 11 
 
 emphasis in the Christian life is placed upon the ethical and moral 
 phase, and upon the principle of love. Therefore Jesus is here 
 depicted as the Son of God who has power to heal and to forgive. 
 But the attitude of the latter group — the materials from Luke's Great 
 Interpolation — is quite different; here the emphasis is not upon 
 righteousness but upon prayer, watchfulness, trust, and faith; and 
 Jesus is presented as the Son of Man, revealing the Father to men, 
 who are, like himself, sons of God. On the practical side it recom- 
 mends chiefly abnegation and opposes covetousness and the possession 
 of property. Further, the latter group is strongly eschatological, with 
 frequent reference to the Kingdom of God, and is likewise strongly 
 anti-Pharisaic, holding even that the Old Testament is not the final 
 revelation of God; but none of this appears in the former group, which 
 hardly mentions the Kingdom of God, and omits all reference to the 
 Pharisees. 
 
 For these reasons it seems necessary to accept the theory propounded 
 )C by Professor E. D. Burton/ that the common sources of Matthew and 
 Luke were, besides Mark, not one but two — that embodied in the Lukan 
 account of Jesus' "Galilean ministry," and that embodied in his 
 "Perean" section. This solution of the synoptic problem, therefore, 
 forms the basis of the present discussion.^ 
 
 It remains to discuss the sources of the materials of Luke's Gospel 
 which are peculiar to himself. Here mechanical means of discrimina- 
 tion fail, and conclusions must be drawn solely from internal evidence. 
 Some, as Burkitt,^ hold that these materials were perhaps a part of 
 the Q source, while others, as Stanton and Weizsacker,'' rightly arguing 
 that it is difficult to suppose that the third evangelist would have 
 undertaken an elaborate interweaving of material, hold that Luke 
 had an expanded recension of Q in which these materials were already 
 imbedded. Yet others, following Harnack's and Wellhausen's strict 
 limitation of Q to the common materials of Matthew and Luke, 
 hold that the third evangelist had yet another written source, perhaps 
 
 ' E. D. Burton, op. cil.; also "Some Phases of the Synoptic Problem," Journal 
 of Biblical Literature, XXXI (191 2), Part II, pp. 95-113. 
 
 ^ I believe, however, that the results of this study will be equally available for those 
 who continue to hold the two-document theory, inasmuch as the materials common to 
 Luke's Passion-narrative and to Matthew are, at most, but a verse or two. 
 
 3 Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission, pp. 130 ff. 
 
 * Stanton, op. cit., II, 227 f.; Weizsacker, Untersuchungen Uber die evangelische 
 Geschichte (1864), pp. 205 f. 
 
 81 
 
12 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 including an account of the Passion. This is the view of B. Weiss and 
 of Feine.' 
 
 The problem, therefore, must be considered whether or not the pecul- 
 iar materials of Luke's Gospel, up to the point where the narrative of 
 Jesus' closing days in Jerusalem begins, were or were not connected 
 with the materials which he shared with Matthew when these latter 
 came into his hand. There are a number of indications which go to show 
 that the combination of these groups of material was not the work of 
 the evangelist. 
 
 First, we have already seen (p. 6) that Luke's habit in deaUng with 
 his Markan source was to insert its materials in blocks of considerable 
 size rather than to interweave it closely with materials from his other 
 sources. But the pecuUar materials of his non-Markan sources are 
 quite closely interwoven with the materials common also to Matthew, 
 while the blocks of the resulting interwoven composition alternate with 
 considerable blocks of Markan materials. 
 
 Secondly, it is a priori probable, from Matthew's topical arrangement, 
 that he should omit sections here and there from his sources. Thus, 
 though he does indeed omit but few sections of his Markan source, 
 another irregularity in his use of Mark, his occasional repetition of 
 passages (seven in all), which serves to show his desire to exhaust the 
 source he had chosen to furnish his outline, would argue for extensive 
 omissions from a source for which he had not the same respect, and which 
 he did not employ so largely in order, or which had to be confdrmed to 
 the Markan materials. That this was the status of his non-Markan 
 sources would appear from the fact that in building up his discourses he 
 usually starts with an occasion and brief outline in the Markan material, 
 and adds to this appropriate materials from the source which he shared 
 with Luke and from materials peculiar to himself.* Since the two latter 
 groups of material are selections that must accord with the subject- 
 matter of the first, it becomes inherently probable that much in their 
 sources must have been omitted. 
 
 Thirdly, internal evidence serves to show that the materials peculiar 
 to Luke's "GaUlean" section (chaps. 3-8) are homogeneous with those 
 
 ' Bernhard Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukas-evangeliums (1907), pp. 195 flF.; Die 
 Quellen der synoptischen Ueberlieferung, Text. u. Untersuch., Band 32, Heft 3 (1908), 
 pp. 1695.; P. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Ueberlieferung des Lukas (1891), pp. 10-12. 
 
 * Cf. the discourses in chaps. 10, 13, 18, 23, 24-25, In the Sermon on the Mount 
 (chaps. 5-7) the similar sermon in Luke (6:20-49) seems to take the place of the 
 Markan outline. 
 
 82 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 13 
 
 which, in this portion, he shares with the First Gospel. The Uterary and 
 historical arguments used above all go to prove that the non-Markan 
 materials of this portion of the Third Gospel must have formed a single 
 document.' 
 
 As regards the materials of the Great Interpolation the case is not 
 so clear. Here the internal evidence seems rather to show that the pecul- 
 iar materials and the Matthew-paralleled materials did not originally 
 form a imified document;^ but the fact, just brought out, that Luke used 
 his second source, as he used his Markan document, in blocks — this would 
 indicate that the interweaving of these materials was not the work of 
 the evangelist, and that the Great Interpolation also lay before him 
 in the form of a single, though composite, document. 
 
 We shall therefore assume that the non-Markan sources of the Lukan 
 narrative of Jesus' ministry up to the time of his approach to Jerusalem 
 are, besides the narratives of the infancy, two: one which includes the 
 non-Markan materials of the " Gahlean ministry, " namely the preaching 
 of John, the temptation, the rejection at Nazareth, the call of four 
 disciples, and the Lesser Interpolation (Luke 3:7-15, 17-18; 4:2-30; 
 5:1-11; 6:20 — 8:3); and a second, which includes the Great Interpola- 
 tion, or "Perean ministry" (Luke 9:51 — 18:14, perhaps also 19:1-27). 
 These sources will be designated, after Burton, from their geographical 
 setting, as ''G" and "P," respectively. We now turn to review the 
 manner in which Luke has made use of these sources. 
 
 IV. LUKE'S use OF HIS NON-MARKAN SOURCES 
 
 First, it has been noted that, in so far as we can judge from the G 
 materials inserted in Matthew, Luke has used that document as he had 
 used his Markan source in its original order. This conclusion is further 
 corroborated by his insertion of accounts parallel to, but not derived 
 from, the Markan source at points which do not correspond to their 
 
 ' See above, pp. 10 f., and cf. Burton, Princ. Lit. Crit., pp. 43 f. These materials 
 show the same narrative interest and the same vividness and definiteness as the 
 Matthew-parallel materials, and, like them, place the emphasis in Christian life upon 
 love and righteousness, and avoid eschatology and anti-Pharisaic utterances. Stanton 
 {pp. cit., II, 296-99) finds in three of these narratives (Luke 5:1-11; 7:36-50; 8: 1-3) 
 indications of Lukan authorship in an unusual number of "expressions characteristic 
 of the third evangelist"; but the evidence is not overwhelming here. 
 
 * Cf. D. R. Wickes, Sources of Luke's Perean Section (Chicago, 191 2). Wickes 
 contends, on the evidence of peculiarities of style and thought, that there are two 
 distinct groups of material, one embracing the Matthew-parallel materials and a few 
 materials pecuMar to Luke, the other the great mass of the peculiarly Lukan material. 
 
 83 
 
14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 position in the Markan narrative. Thus, for the Markan accounts 
 of the rejection at Nazareth, the call of the first disciples, and the 
 anointing of Jesus, he substitutes parallel but fuller accounts; and 
 these are in each case differently placed. It is difficult to see why this 
 should have been the case, unless in so placing them the evangelist 
 followed the order in which they already stood in the source from 
 which he drew them. Of the form in which P lay before the 
 evangelist we cannot be sufficiently sure to draw any deductions which 
 might be used as evidence in our stiidy; but probably the case is the 
 same here also. 
 
 Secondly, it appears that Luke's tendency was to use materials from 
 his sources in blocks of considerable size. This is the manner in which 
 he has used the G source, which appears first in the narrative of the 
 Preaching of the Baptist somewhat conflated with Markan materials, 
 but then in a block which includes the temptation and the rejection at 
 Nazareth, followed by the insertion of the single narrative of the Call of 
 the First Disciples, and finally by the block (6:20 — 8:3) known as the 
 "Lesser Interpolation." The P materials are inserted in one large 
 block of eight and one-half chapters (351 verses), with the possible 
 addition of a second smaller block at the beginning of the Jerusalem 
 ministry (Luke 19:1-27). 
 
 Thirdly, where Luke had duplicate accounts before him, it does not 
 seem to have been his habit to conflate them as Matthew regularly did ; 
 but he rather made choice between them and followed closely the one 
 selected. Thus, in the accounts of the rejection at Nazareth (4: 16-30), 
 the call of the first disciples (5:1-11), and the anointing of Jesus (7:36- 
 50), there is no reason for believing that any of the details are drawn from 
 the corresponding Markan accounts. The reverse is true, however, 
 in the description of the Baptist's Testimony (3:16), where, save for the 
 improvement in the order of the phrases, Luke agrees closely with Mark, 
 while Matthew apparently conflates details from the Markan source 
 with the account of G. In P this avoidance of duplicates is not quite 
 so clear, since that document seems to have been inserted just as it 
 stood. Indeed, Luke does occasionally include in his Great Interpola- 
 tion accounts of events that he has already given in the Markan version 
 (cf. Luke 5:12-16 with 17:11-14; 6:6-11 with 14:2-6; and perhaps 
 9:1-6 with 10:1-12); but he also omits Markan accounts of events 
 obviously the same as those which he intends to give in the P version, 
 the charge of evil exorcism (11:14-23; cf . Mark 3 : 2 2-30) and the demand 
 for a sign (11:29; cf. Mark. 8:11-13). 
 
 84 ■ 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 15 
 
 Fourthly, in turning from one source to another the evangehst seems 
 to seek for a nexus through some common incident or geographical 
 hint. Thus the Markan reference to the temptation (cf. Luke 4:1-2) 
 gives him an opportunity to turn to the account in his G document, 
 which he follows until he can connect the reference to Jesus' return to 
 Capernaum (4:31) with the similar reference in Mark (Mark 1:21). 
 The list of Jesus' disciples and the description of the general character 
 of his ministry the evangehst transposes and thus brings Jesus' teaching 
 (drawn from a G account) into a position where it is balanced against 
 his working. The nexus of P is not so definite, for P itself is largely 
 wanting in just these hints. It is difficult to say, therefore, just what 
 reasons prevailed upon the evangelist to locate it where he did; perhaps 
 this seemed to him the latest point at which he could reasonably interrupt 
 the narrative of Jesus' ministry, or more probably the reference to a 
 journey (Luke 9:51; cf. Mark 10: i) was sufi&cient nexus. 
 
 Fifthly, as far as it can be determined, Luke shows an even greater 
 fidelity to the language of G than to that of Mark. That is to say, his 
 agreements with Matthew are more numerous in G materials than in the 
 Markan ; thus in the Markan materials common to Luke and Matthew, 
 Luke has 3,546 words, of which there appear in Matthew, in whole or 
 in part, 1,356, or 38. 24 per cent; while of the G materials common to 
 both Luke has, in his Lesser Interpolation (Luke 6: 20 — 8:3), 1,028 words, 
 of which 516, or 50. 2 per cent, are common also to Matthew. This is 
 about equal to the agreement of Luke and Matthew in the only con- 
 siderable discourse section of Mark (Luke 8: 4-1 5 = Matt. 13:1-23), 
 where, of Luke's 231 words, 127 are paralleled in Matthew, or 54.9 
 per cent; but the Lesser Interpolation includes also the narrative of 
 the Heahng of the Centurion's Servant. The agreements of Matthew 
 and Luke in the P materials common to both are approximately the same : 
 of 3,234 words in Luke, 1,715 are shared by Matthew, or 53. 03 per cent; 
 but these are chiefly discourse materials. It would thus appear that 
 Luke followed the language of his "Perean," and particularly of his 
 "GaHlean," sources rather more closely than he did that of his Markan 
 document. 
 
 v. EDITORIAL ADDITIONS BY THE EVANGELIST 
 
 A further point in the third evangelist's literary method, the construc- 
 tion of his editorial summaries, requires especial consideration, and in 
 particular the question whether or not these are produced, as some of the 
 similar descriptions in the First Gospel appear to have been, by the 
 
 . 85 
 
16 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 compilation of data from scattered portions of the Markan som-ce (cf. 
 with Matt. 4:23-25; Mark 1:39, 28, 32, 34a; 3:76-8). Of the nine 
 passages connected with Markan materials where the editorial hand of 
 the evangelist is most clearly manifest (Luke 3:19-20; 4:14-15; 4:41; 
 5:15-16; 5:17; 6:11; 6:17-19: 8:1-3; 18:34), four (Luke 3:19-20; 
 5: 15-16; 6:11; 6: 17-19), including the longest of them all, contain no 
 materials which appear to have been drawn from any Markan passage 
 except the immediate parallel. These may be dismissed at once. 
 Luke 5:17 is not similar to the corresponding Markan passage (Mark 
 2:1-2); but while a somewhat similar passage finally occurs in Mark 
 7:1 (omitted by Luke), the specification of a wide range of territory 
 (cf . Luke 3 : 1-2 ; 3:3; Acts 2:9-11; 9:31; 11:19, etc.) and the connection 
 oidvvafiis and laadai (cf. Luke 6:19) are specifically Lukan characteristics, 
 so that a Markan source is hardly needed for this passage. Luke 
 18:34 is somewhat similar to Mark 9:32; but the expansion of this 
 verse by Luke in the parallel position is sufficient to show that it was one 
 of the dominating ideas in his own explanation of the gospel story. 
 Luke 8:1-3, while remotely paralleled in Mark {6:6b; 15:40-41; 
 16:1), contains further details and is not satisfied by these parallels 
 (note also the differences in the list of the women) and seems rather to 
 require another source, probably the G document, which adjoins or 
 includes it. Thus far, then, it has not appeared that Luke's editorial 
 comments are produced by a process of conflation; and this is just the 
 conclusion that might be expected regarding an author who in other 
 respects conflates so little. 
 
 In the remaining instances, however, the case appears dift'erent at 
 first glance. Luke 4: 14-15 is largely paralleled in three verses of Mark: 
 the parallel verse (Mark i : 14) and Mark 1 : 28 and i : 39. But these two 
 latter parallels are of the most conventional materials, and the former 
 of them (Luke 4:146) is quite as well suggested by an earlier phrase 
 in Luke: irairav Ttjv wepixoipov in Luke ;^:^. Since this section, standing 
 between two G narratives (Luke 4:3-13, 16-30), is likely on that account 
 to have come from G, and since it contains also elements not satisfied 
 by Mark {kv rrj SvvafxeL rod Tlvevnaros, do^a^ofxevos vto iravTOiv), it seems 
 rather far-fetched to attempt to describe it as a compilation of these 
 merely incidental details from the Markan source. Luke 4:41 is the 
 most apparent case of compilation; here, in the midst of a Markan 
 account, there are suddenly inserted the phrase Xkyovra 6tl <tv d 6 Tids 
 ToO deov and the verb cTrtrt/i^i/, which have a verbal parallel in Mark 
 3:11-12 two chapters later. Yet the phrase, in its conventional ecclesi- 
 
 86 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 17 
 
 astical language, may be but an accidental assimilation to Markan 
 language of the more original cry in the preceding narrative of Luke 
 (cf . Luke 4 : 34, really a part of the section to which this verse forms a 
 conclusion), and the coincidence of ^inTinq.v may easily be accidental; or 
 we may here be confronted with an instance of harmonistic corruption 
 of the text. 
 
 There is, therefore, no undoubted instance of conflation of details 
 garnered from different points in the sources to build up an editorial 
 summary, or transitional sentence, or a complete narrative; and inasmuch 
 as this is not elsewhere the evangelist's literary method, it seems rather 
 that any real cases of editorial compilation must be due to a merely 
 unconscious reminiscence of details learned elsewhere in the source. 
 That such laborious and detailed compilation as the converse proposi- 
 tion would require could never have been an evangelist's method is 
 patent in two facts. First, an evangelist who exhibits such freedom in 
 the revision of the language and form of his sources cannot have been 
 at great pains to preserve all the minutiae of their content; and second, 
 the presence of a single doublet, especially of such doublets as those which 
 in Matthew (cf. Matt. 5:29-30 and 18:8-9; 9:32-34 and 12:22-24) 
 arise simply from the careless repetition of a passage out a of single source, 
 is proof positive that no such particularistic treatment of the sources 
 obtained in the literary method of the evangehst. (Luke avoided dou- 
 blets simply by using his sources in their own order and eliminating any 
 dupUcations which struck him.) 
 
 On the other hand there is an occasional editorial transposition of 
 details from one point to another within a single narrative. Sometimes 
 this takes the form of a better setting of the scene, as when the presence 
 of the scribes (Luke 5:17; cf. 5 : 21 and Mark 2 : 6) or the fact that Jesus 
 had fallen asleep (Luke 8:23, cf. Mark 4:38) is brought forward to a 
 point where it does not so delay the climax of the story. In particular, 
 narrative details which in Mark are appended at the conclusion of the 
 narrative, obvious afterthoughts, are without exception transferred to 
 better positions in the body of the narrative (cf. Luke 3:19-20 with 
 Mark 6:17-18; Luke 8:42a, 556 with Mark 5:426, 436; Luke 9:146 
 with Mark 6 : 44) . This particular phase of Luke's general improvement 
 of the diction and form of the Markan narration is of especial importance. 
 
 VI. DOUBLETS V 
 
 While the production of so-called "doublets" cannot have been any 
 intentional part of the literary method of the third evangelist, yet these 
 
 87 
 
18 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 constitute a literary phenomenon which must be recognized in order to 
 gain a clear understanding of the composition of the gospel record. A 
 true doublet may be defined as a phenomenon wherein the same 
 thought (generally a saying of Jesus) appears twice in a single Gospel, 
 nearly always under such circumstances as to raise the question whether 
 the second instance was not drawn from another source than that of 
 the first. In addition to the true doublets there must be recognized 
 also what have been called "veiled doublets," where the accounts of 
 an incident, while each without a duphcate in its own Gospel, seem not 
 to have been drawn from the same source (for example, cf. Luke 5:1-11 
 and Mark 1:16-20). 
 
 However, when they are drawn from different sources the agree- 
 ments between the two members will naturally be less numerous and 
 complete, in the case of a doublet or a veiled doublet, than in the case 
 of two accounts drawn from the same documentary source. Their 
 exact extent may now be examined. 
 
 Of true doublets in Luke, Hawkins^ fists ten, all of which seem to 
 be due to a duplication of similar materials in different sources. These 
 ten contain, in both their members, 555 words and 258 mutual agreements 
 (129 agreements, each counted twice); so that the amount of mutual 
 agreement may be counted as 46 . 5 per cent, considerably less than the 
 agreement of Luke with Mark in discourse, 73 . 4 per cent. The members 
 of these doublets, drawn by Luke from non-Markan sources, contain 
 237 words, of which 82, or 34.6 per cent, agree with the Markan text, 
 and 57 more are parallel in substance, or 56 . i per cent in all. However, 
 there is great diversity in the amount of agreement; it ranges as high as 
 75 per cent (Luke 17:33; cf. Mark 8:35) and as low as 15 per cent 
 (Luke 12:9; cf. Mark 8:38). Agreement in the order of words also 
 appears in four of these ten instances. 
 
 With the veiled doublets of Luke the case is similar. In the thir- 
 teen listed by Stanton,^ most of them true doublets in Matthew, of 281 
 
 ^ Horae Syn.' {igog), pp. gg-io6. These are: Luke 8:16 = 11:33; 8:17 = 12:2; 
 8:18 = 19:26; 9:3-5 = 10:4-11; 9:23 = 14:27; 9:24=17:33; 9:26 = 12:9; 11:43 = 
 20:46; 12:11-12 = 21:14-15; 14:11 = 18:14; perhaps also Luke 9:46 = 22:24, but 
 this seems editorial in both instances. To these should be added Luke 10: 16 = 9:48. 
 
 ^Op. cit., II, 54-60. These are: Luke 11:9, cf. Mark 11:24; Luke 11:15, 
 cf. Mark 3:22; Luke 11:16, cf. Mark 8:11; Luke 11:17-18, cf. Mark 3:23-26; 
 Luke 11: 21-22, cf. Mark 3: 27; Luke 11: 29, cf. Mark 8: 12; Luke 12: 10, cf . Mark 
 3:28-29; Luke 13:18-19, cf. Mark. 4:30-32; Luke 13:30, cf. Mark 10:31; Luke 
 16:18, cf. Mark 10:11; Luke 17:1-2, cf. Mark 9:42; Luke 17:6, cf. Mark 11:23; 
 Luke 22: 26, cf. Mark 9:35. 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 19 
 
 words III agree with Mark (38 per cent), while 50 more are paralleled 
 in substance, or 56 .3 per cent in all, as against the corresponding figures 
 of 73 .4 per cent and 86 .8 per cent for the materials of Luke agreeing with, 
 or essentially paralleled in, Mark in the discourse materials drawn from 
 the Markan source. Agreements in order of words appear in three of 
 the fourteen instances. 
 
 Examination of longer passages in Luke parallel to, but not derived 
 from, the Markan document shows even less agreement. Thus, in the 
 Rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4: 16-30), of 271 words but 20 are common 
 to Mark also; in the Call of the First Disciples (Luke 5:1-11), of 207 
 words but 16 are common; and even in the Charge of Exorcism by 
 Beelzebub (Luke 11 : 15-23), of 137 words only 25 (18 per cent) are shared 
 with Mark, but these are 32 .5 per cent of the common materials of the 
 section. 
 
 It, therefore, appears that a certain amount of agreement between 
 different sources is to be expected, amounting, in discourse, to perhaps 
 half the agreement of different versions of the same source, both in the 
 choice of words and in the order of their arrangement, but occasionally 
 approaching the limits of the agreement of accounts derived from the 
 same source. 
 
 VII. THE PRINCIPLES OF LUKE'S LITERARY PROCEDURE 
 
 We may now state briefly the results of the preceding study of the 
 literary method of the third evangelist in the form of the principles which, 
 consciously or unconsciously, guided him in his task. 
 
 1. In making use of his sources the evangelist endeavored, as far as 
 possible, to preserve the original order of their materials. 
 
 2. Where he found duplicate accounts of the same incident he pre- 
 ferred to choose one of them and follow it to the exclusion of the other, 
 rather than to attempt to conflate the details of both into a single nar- 
 rative. The version so selected was inserted at the point where it stood 
 in its own source. 
 
 3. In the use of his sources it was his tendency to insert them in 
 considerable blocks, following one until some common detail led him to 
 take up another at what seemed to him the same point. 
 
 4. On the other hand, so far as indications of common points availed, 
 it was his endeavor to fit his narratives together in the historical order of 
 events. It is conceivable, therefore, that, in the use of two rapidly 
 moving narratives covering much the same ground, this process would 
 approach compilation or conflation. 
 
 89 
 
20 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 5. In copying his sources he is free to revise and improve their 
 language; but there are limits to be set to this freedom. In both the 
 vocabulary and the order of words the greatest degree of freedom is to 
 be found in the introductions and conclusions of narratives, while the 
 body of the narratives is repeated more exactly, and the discourses, 
 and especially the apothegms, of Jesus are repeated with the least 
 amount of revision. 
 
 6. His primary interest, however, is historical, and he is at consider- 
 able pains not to misquote his sources on points of sequence and chro- 
 nology. 
 
 7. While generally endeavoring not to repeat a single incident which 
 came to him in two versions, and therefore often omitting matter from 
 his sources, he sometimes preserves "doublets" of the words of Jesus, 
 often closely similar in language, and more frequently presents "veiled 
 doublets" by preserving the non-Mar kan version of a story or saying 
 which appears also in Mark. 
 
 90 
 
CHAPTER II 
 LITERARY PHENOMENA OF THE PASSION-NARRATIVE IN LUKE 
 
 It must be at once apparent to even the casual observer that in the 
 account of the closing week of Jesus' career the Third Gospel differs 
 considerably more from the Second than it does in any other portions 
 of his ministry where the two works cover the same ground. This 
 appears at once in matters of fact, such as the time and purpose of Jesus' 
 examination before the Jewish authorities, his trial before Pilate, the 
 account of the Last Supper, and the question whether the departure of 
 Judas took place before or after the Supper. It becomes the more evi- 
 dent to one who studies the two Gospels closely side by side and endeavors 
 to trace their parallels — so numerous are the transpositions, expansions, \ 
 or abbreviations of the minor details. We come, therefore, to a study 
 of the literary phenomena of these closing chapters of Luke. 
 
 I. THE LIMITS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH MARK 
 
 In the study of the Mark parallels we may divide the Passion- 
 narrative of the Third Gospel into four sections, namely: (i) Luke 
 19:1-27, to which there are in Mark no parallel materials; (2) 
 Luke 19:28 — 22:13, where the parallelism to Mark is fairly close; 
 [(3)) Luke 22:14 — 24:11, where the narratives are parallel, but the v' 
 agreements are not so close; and (4) Luke 24: 13-53, where the parallel 
 narrative of Mark is wanting. In the first and fourth of these, of 
 course, there can be no question of the amount of agreement between 
 the two Gospels, and we come to a consideration of the second and third. 
 
 We have already seen (pp. 7-8) that in parallel passages about 
 one-half of the words of Mark appear also in Luke, wholly or in part, 
 and that this agreement is much closer in the case of words of Jesus, 
 and correspondingly less in the introductions and conclusions of narra- 
 tives. The phenomena are the same in the former of the sections before 
 us (Luke 19:28 — 22:13); of 1,718 words in Luke (excluding verses not 
 paralleled in Mark), 904, or 52 . 6 per cent, are found also in Mark, and 
 213 more are there paralleled in substance, or 65 per cent in all. But in 
 the discourse materials the proportion does not hold; in the discourse 
 materials common to Luke and Mark previous to Luke 19:1, of 1,103 
 words, 810, or 73 . 4 per cent, are wholly or in part common to both, and 
 
 91] 21 
 
22 
 
 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 152 more are paralleled in substance, or 87. 2 per cent in all; but in the 
 present section, of 881 words of discourse, 519, or 58. 9 per cent only, are 
 common to both gospels, and 71 more paralleled in substance, or 66.9 
 per cent in all. This smaller amount of agreement is largely due to 
 the divergence between the Markan and the Lukan versions of the 
 Apocalyptic Discourse, where of 403 words only 180, or 44.7 per cent, 
 are common to both, and 26 more paralleled in substance, or 51 .1 per 
 cent in all. The agreements of Luke with Mark in the Apocalyptic 
 Discourse, then, are but three-fifths as numerous as in his Markan 
 discourse materials (including parables) up to the beginning of the 
 Passion-narrative. Evidently he has either here markedly changed his 
 literary method, or else he is using also non-Markan materials which are 
 parallel in substance to the Markan. 
 
 Examination of the introductions and conclusions of the separate 
 incidents of this section (Luke 19 : 28 — 22 : 13) — of those opening sentences 
 which set the scene for the incident, and the closing sentences which are 
 frequently, though not always, added after the chmax of the incident 
 is past — shows that Luke is here, if anything, following, his Markan 
 source more closely. For while in Markan sections examined (pp. 7-8) 
 in the introductions 24 .6 per cent, and in the conclusions 35 .3 per cent, 
 of the words are shared by both Gospels, here, of 154 words of intro- 
 duction, 79, or 51 per cent, and of 147 words of conclusion, 57, or 39 per 
 cent, are common to both. Evidently in this respect, where we should 
 most expect editorial freedom, Luke follows his Markan source more 
 closely than before. 
 
 TABLE I 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 Discourse 
 
 Introductions 
 
 Conclusions 
 
 
 A* 
 
 Bf 
 
 ct 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 Luke 4:31, etc. . . 
 Luke T,: t, — 18:4^. 
 
 1,339 
 
 563 
 
 42.0 
 
 120 
 
 1,103 
 881 
 
 403 
 222 
 
 90 
 810 
 
 519 
 180 
 
 113 
 
 7SO 
 73-4 
 58.9 
 44-7 
 50.9 
 
 146 
 
 36 
 
 24.6 
 
 119 
 
 42 
 
 35-6 
 
 Luke 19:28 — 22:13 
 Luke 21:1-36. . . . 
 Luke 22:14 — 24:11 
 
 1,861 
 
 589 
 1,472 
 
 904 
 205 
 475 
 
 48. 5 
 34-8 
 
 32.3 
 
 IS4 
 
 79 
 
 513 
 
 147 
 
 57 
 
 38.8 
 
 183 
 
 54 
 
 295 
 
 1 10 
 
 33 
 
 30.0 
 
 * A refers to words in Luke, f B refers to common words. J C refers to percentage. 
 
 Turning to the latter section, Luke 22:14 — 24:11, we find far less 
 agreement than before; of 1,472 words (again excluding verses of Luke 
 not paralleled in Mark), but 475, or 32 .3 per cent, are common, wholly 
 or in part, to the two Gospels; that is, the agreements are but three- 
 
 92 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 23 
 
 fifths as numerous as in the early part of the gospel narrative. In 
 discourse materials the proportion is 113 words out of 222, or 50.9 per 
 cent; in the introductions, 54 words out of 183, or 29.5 per cent; in 
 the conclusions, :^^ words out of no, or 30 per cent. These phenomena 
 are made plainer in Table I. 
 
 II. ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS IN THE NARRATIVE 
 
 There are in the Passion-narrative of Luke (Luke 19:1 — 24:53) 
 twenty-eight additions of materials quite without parallels in Mark, 
 totaling, at a minimum count, at least 127I verses.' Of these twenty- 
 eight additions only three (Luke 19:1-27, 23:4-15, and 24:13-53), 
 totahng 81 verses, are in blocks of more than 6 verses^^such as we should 
 expect from the evangehst's method of adding materials from another 
 source in other parts of his Gospel (principle 3, p. 19). On the other 
 hand there are sixteen additions comprising but a single verse or part 
 of a verse. The additions are distributed as follows: in Luke 19:28 — 
 22:13, ni^G additions, 17 verses; in Luke 22:14 — 24:11, seventeen 
 additions, 34^ verses, including the 12 verses of the block Luke 23 : 4-1 5. 
 
 In the earlier portion of the Gospel, however, the phenomena are 
 just the reverse. Here the added materials appear in six blocks (Luke 
 3-5-15; 3:23-38; 4:2-30; 5:1-11; 6:20—8:3; 9:51— 18:14), no one 
 of which contains less than 11 verses, and the largest of which 
 contain 83 and 351 verses respectively. Aside from these, there are 
 but six additions to the Markan materials (not including purely editorial 
 remarks), totaling 8 verses (Luke 3:17-18; 5:39; 9:31-32; 9:43; 18: 
 34, 43). Thus, in the 199 verses containing the Markan account of 
 Jesus' ministry there are six slight additions, 8 verses ; in the 1 76 verses 
 which include the Mark -parallel materials of the Passion-narrative there 
 are (the larger blocks already included) fifteen additions, 39I verses, or 
 two and one-half times as many additions containing five times as much 
 material. While this great increase in the number and importance of 
 small additions may be in part due to the operation of principle 4 
 (see p. 19), it is evident that there is here a considerable difference from 
 the literary result earlier exhibited. 
 
 The phenomena of omissions of materials which appear in the Markan 
 narrative are not so striking. There are in the Passion-narrative thirty- 
 five omissions^ of 87 verses in all; thirteen of these, 37 verses, are in 
 the section Luke 19:28 — 22:13, and twenty-two omissions, 47 verses, 
 
 ' For list see Appendix I, list I. 
 ' For list see Appendix I, list IV B. 
 
 93 
 
24 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 in the section Luke 22 : 14 — 24: 11. In the earlier portion of the Gospel, 
 besides Luke's "Great Omission" of the 75 verses in Mark 6:45 — 8:26, 
 there are twenty-five omissions,' totaling 98I verses. Thus in the case of 
 omissions also, while the amount of omitted material is proportionately 
 about the same, the blocks of material are smaller in the Passion- 
 narrative. 
 
 III. TRANSPOSITIONS OF THE ORDER OF THE NARRATIVE 
 
 In the matter of transpositions of the order of events, we come again 
 to a more important divergence in Luke's literary method. It has 
 already been noticed (principle i, p. 19; see also pp. 6 f., 9 f.) that Luke 
 . ^is wont to preserve the original order of his sources. Thus, in the Markan 
 materials of Luke t,:^ — 18:14, there are but three changes in the order 
 of sections (Luke 3:19-20; 6:17-19; 8:4-15), none of which affect 
 the sequence of the narrative (since two are editorial summaries and 
 the third a discourse), and two of which seem designed to introduce 
 and conclude the Lesser Interpolation. There are, however, three 
 non-Markan parallels to Markan narratives (Luke 4:16-30; 5:1-11; 
 7:36-50), no one of which occupies the position corresponding to that of 
 the Markan narrative, and two of which introduce important changes in 
 the development of Jesus' ministry; but it has been shown to be prob- 
 able (see p. 13) that this is due to the evangelist's determination to 
 follow some other source than Mark in its order as well as in its content. 
 Besides these transpositions of sections, there are also eight transpositions 
 of verses or portions of verses.^ Five of these (Luke 3:2-3; 8:296; 
 8:42a, 46b; 9:14a) are merely descriptive details, one (Luke 9:48c) 
 is discourse material, and the other two (Luke 8:516, 55c) are purely 
 incidental actions, slightly transposed to improve the unity of the nar- 
 rative. There are, then, no transpositions of the order of events which 
 can be assigned to the hand of Luke himself ; in the cases which seem to 
 be such he is in reality following one of his sources. 
 
 But the Passion-narrative appears to contradict this rule flatly; 
 for here transpositions are numerous and important.^ There are four 
 transpositions of sections, all of which affect the order of events very 
 considerably: the revelation of the traitor is placed after the Last Supper, 
 not before (Luke 22:21-23), the quarrel among the disciples (Luke 
 
 ' For list see Appendix I, list IV A. 
 * For list see Appendix I, list V A. 
 3 For list see Appendix I, list V B. 
 
 94 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 25 
 
 22: 24-27) is brought into the same context from a point some four chap- 
 ters earlier, and the mocking of Jesus by the police (Luke 22:63-65) 
 and the account of Peter's denials (Luke 22 : 56-62) are mutually reversed 
 and then placed before, not after, the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin. 
 In addition there are fourteen transpositions of verses or portions of 
 verses, of which only five (Luke 23:19, 32, 38, 54; 24:10a) are mere 
 descriptive details, and two more are really repetitions (Luke 22:40, 70). 
 This leaves seven small but important transpositions to be added to the 
 four longer ones above: the departure from the upper room (22 :39), the 
 meeting of the Sanhedrin (22:66), Jesus' answer to the priests (22:706), 
 the charges against Jesus (23 : 2), the crucifixion of the outlaws (23 : 336), 
 the draft of vinegar (23:36), and the disaster to the Temple (23:456). 
 All these occur in the later portion of the Passion-narrative, Luke 
 22:14 — 24:11; but there is also one transposition in the earUer portion, 
 the editorial summary in Luke 21:37 (cf- Mark 11:19), 
 
 While, then, the number of transpositions in the Passion-narrative 
 (19) is not disproportionate to that in the earher portion of the Gospel 
 (15), it is evident that their importance, particularly in the third section, 
 is far greater; and an explanation must be found also for this apparent 
 marked change in the evangelist's literary method. 
 
 IV. INTERWEAVING AND CONFLATION 
 
 The fourth principle of Luke's literary method (see p. 19), that the 
 evangelist endeavors to interweave his materials as closely as possible 
 about any nexus of common data, will apply with peculiar force to a 
 Passion-narrative, where we find, even in Mark, a closely knit and 
 rapidly moving tale, and where the insertion of any large block of mate- 
 rials, such as a lengthy discourse by Jesus before Pilate or Herod, would 
 be obviously inappropriate, and where even such an address as that in 
 John 13-17 seriously interrupts the thread of the story. Hence we 
 find that the phenomena described above, especially in the matter of 
 addition and transposition of materials, result in a narrative which 
 reveals a large measure of interweaving of non-Markan materials with 
 those more similar to Mark, and even some instances of quite apparent 
 conflation of sources in minute details. This is, it is true, a new feature 
 in Luke's literary method (but cf. Luke 3:16); but it is the natural 
 result of the more closely knit character of the Passion-narrative and 
 the necessarily fixed outline of any narration of the close of Jesus' 
 life (cf. even the Fourth Gospel) reacting upon the third evangelist's 
 custom of interweaving his sources in blocks. Conflation or interpolation 
 
 95 
 
26 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 of sources becomes a characteristic literary phenomenon of the Passion- 
 narrative, and as such merits a brief description. 
 
 First, it must be observed that interpolation or conflation can be 
 proved only when it is clumsily done; but there are sufficient instances 
 of conflation of unassimilated sources in the Passion-narrative to demon- 
 strate the presence of the phenomenon.' These appear to be of two 
 types: (a) cases where the interpolated fragment interrupts and breaks 
 the thought or is needlessly redundant (cf. Luke 21:16-17, 20-22; 
 22:69-71); and (b) cases where it is merely added as an afterthought 
 (cf. Luke 24:10a), a phenomenon which Luke has consistently elimi- 
 nated in his dealing with his Markan source (see p. 17, and cf. Luke 
 8:42a, 556; 9:14a). 
 
 Secondly, in some at least of the instances, it appears to be a 
 conflation of documents. Thus in the passage from the Apocalyptic 
 Discourse describing the siege of Jerusalem (Luke 21 : 20-22), the inter- 
 ruption is so rude as to quite preclude the supposition that the interpola- 
 tion was anything but documentary. Verse 20 begins with a description 
 of the siege of the city (a reference quite diverse from the Markan sug- 
 gestion of a desecration of the Temple). Verse 21a agrees exactly with 
 Mark in both the choice and the order of the words. Its reference is 
 to the country regions of the province, and the passage which follows 
 it in Mark (closely paralleled in Luke 17:31-32) refers to rural conditions 
 rather than to the life of the capital. But the succeeding passage in 
 Luke (vss. 21J-22) harks back to the city; the proper antecedent of 
 avTtjs and avrriv can only be the city, since "those in the country" are 
 forbidden to "enter into her." Omission of the interpolated Markan 
 passage (vs. 21a) restores the continuity of the thought, and makes, 
 not Ty 'lovSala, but 'lepovaaXrjfj,, the proper grammatical antecedent of 
 the pronouns. But such an undigested context as this could never 
 result from the adding of ideas in the author's mind, and it must be purely 
 documentary and mechanical. 
 
 Thirdly, this interpolation occurs either when the groundwork of 
 the narrative is Markan, as in the interpolation of the epigram concerning 
 the Stone of Stumbling (Luke 20:18), or non-Markan, as in the case 
 above. 
 
 v. SOURCES OF THE NON-MARKAN MATERIALS 
 
 The investigations above have brought to Hght sufficient data to 
 permit us to form a preliminary estimate of the nature of the sources 
 
 ' For list see Appendix I, list VI. 
 
 96 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 27 
 
 from which the evangelist drew the non-Markan materials of his Passion- 
 narrative. Such an estimate will have to be more fully developed, 
 tested, perhaps revised, when the full extent of these materials is revealed; 
 but the data already accumulated are sufficient to reveal its general 
 form. 
 
 The first supposition would be that the evangelist drew these mate- 
 rials from oral tradition. Surely there must have been many tales 
 concerning the closing days of Jesus' life, above all, of that supreme 
 tragedy about which centered the faith of the church; and what more 
 likely than that the evangehst, visiting Jerusalem in company with 
 Paul (cf. Acts 21:15), should have gathered these for use in his preach- 
 ing, stored them in his mind, and set them down upon papyrus for per- 
 haps the first time when he came to write his account for Theophilus ? 
 This, assuredly, would be the simplest hypothesis, and would in part 
 satisfy our craving to find some place in the process of gospel-making 
 for the influence of the oral tradition; but do the data corroborate this 
 hypothesis ? 
 
 Most important of these data are the transpositions of materials 
 more or less closely paralleled in Mark, especially of those more consid- 
 erable blocks, with the corrections of the Markan narrative which follow 
 upon such changes in the order of events. In an evangelist with the 
 avowed purpose of the historian, who is usually so scrupulous about the 
 historical order of events, this can mean but one thing, namely, that these 
 events were definitely located, by some authority at his disposal, in an 
 order which differed from the Markan. Had these traditions come to 
 him in scattered fragments, the written document which lay before him 
 must inevitably have prevailed to fix their order. 
 
 Two possibilities, then, lie open before us: either a considerable 
 portion of these non-Markan materials was drawn from a connected 
 source, oral or written, or else some one or more of those who could 
 speak with authority of the events in question (cf. Luke 1:2) was at 
 pains to point out to the third evangehst the particulars in which the 
 second evangelist had been in error. 
 
 This latter possibility appears to offer an attractive solution of the 
 problem, and we should like to picture the beloved physician sitting 
 at the feet of one of the apostles or of the women who had ministered to 
 Jesus; but difficulties arise in the application of the hypothesis. First 
 of these is the extent of the changes introduced: Luke's informant must 
 have told him that the Markan version of the Apocalyptic Discourse 
 was not the original; that Peter and John were the stewards for the 
 
 97 
 
28 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 Last Supper; that in the Markan account of the Supper both the order 
 of events and the order of the elements was incorrect; that Jesus did 
 not waken the disciples in Gethsemane thrice but only once; that Jesus 
 healed the ear of the high priest's servant and made a far more signifi- 
 cant remark on the occasion of his arrest than that recorded by Mark; 
 that his trial was not by night but delayed until morning, and that it was 
 not a true trial at all, since no verdict was reached ; that Peter's denials 
 were separated by certain intervals, and that his repentance came with 
 a glance from Jesus; that the Roman soldiers mocked Jesus, not upon 
 his condemnation (Mark 15:16), but when he hung upon the cross 
 (Luke 23:36); that the centurion at the cross really bespoke himself 
 like a pagan and not like a believer ; that Joseph of Arimathaea had really 
 defended Jesus; that the tomb was a new one; and finally that the 
 Resurrection appearances were not in Gahlee but in and about Jerusa- 
 lem. These sixteen points are all either corrections by Luke where he 
 substitutes another account for the Markan, transpositions of the Markan 
 order, or points which appear incapable of independent transmission, 
 and which must therefore involve a version of the whole story in which 
 they appear unless they are explicit corrections of the Markan version. 
 But taken together their extent is so considerable as to constitute prac- 
 tically a running commentary upon the whole of the Passion-story. 
 But the Christians of the apostoHc age were not commentators, scho- 
 lastics, least of all where their own infant records were concerned. Nor 
 is it at all likely that Luke would have brought his copy of Mark — a 
 Greek gospel — to the Jewish church in Jerusalem in the brief period 
 that intervened between the probable date of our earliest Gospel and 
 Titus' destruction of the Holy City. Further, be it remarked that such 
 a theory of correction fails entirely to account both for that marked 
 change in the amount of Luke's agreement with Mark, linguistically, 
 which has been pointed out, and for the limitation of this change to 
 the Passion-story. And, finally, as far as can be determined, the trans- 
 positions of any serious import in earher portions of the Third Gospel 
 are due to the use of a non-Markan source of definite construction. 
 
 The hypothesis that Luke was set right on points where Mark had 
 erred becomes therefore scarcely tenable, and we are left to the alterna- 
 tive that at least a considerable portion of the non-Markan materials 
 -came to the third evangelist as a definitely ordered narration. It re- 
 mains to inquire whether this theory is in accord with the known facts. 
 
 It is true that certain of the non-Markan materials of the Passion- 
 narrative are quite capable of independent transmission as mere frag- 
 
 98 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 29 
 
 ments of the oral tradition. Such are pre-eminently the short "logia" ' 
 of Jesus, of which many are inserted into the narration (for example, 
 Luke 19:41-44; 20:18; 22:28-30, 35-39, 676-68). Some of the inci- 
 dents related also might be gleaned by a visitor to Jerusalem : the descent 
 of the Mount of Olives (Luke 19:37, a striking sign of acquaintance with 
 the actual scene) may early have been marked by a tiny oratory, not 
 only as the spot where Jesus was met by the crowds and halted to lament 
 the city, but also as the scene of the Apocal\^tic Discourse and perhaps 
 of the withering of the fig tree. The order of the elements in the Euchar- >. --' 
 ist, certainly not the Pauline (cf. I Cor. 11 : 23-25), may have been that 
 of the Jerusalem community, with which a pilgrim would surely be struck, 
 or possibly even a ritual for the Agape; if there were two versions of 
 the Lord's Prayer (cf. Luke 11:2-4; Matt. 6:9-13), equal diversity 
 in the Eucharist was possible; though it is strange that Luke the Pauline 
 evangelist and not Mark the native of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 12:12) should 
 record for us the Jerusalem usage. Yet the extent of the materials which \ 
 cannot have been so gathered, and must have stood in a source which \ 
 possessed definite order and construction of its own, remains large enough y 
 to form practically a complete narrative of the Passion-history, a "little 
 gospel." Economy of hypothesis would suggest that these other mate- 
 rials also were then a part of it. 
 
 But if there was another complete account of the close of Jesus' 
 life, it necessarily follows that it must have overlapped the Markan 
 account at many points. A comparison of the Passion-narrative of the 
 Fourth Gospel, which at other points is so different, with that of the 
 Synoptics is sufficient to show how closely any story of this portion of 
 Jesus' career must adhere to the accepted outline. There must then 
 have been very many duplicate accounts in the two sources which Luke 
 would appear to have used, and this fact becomes of importance in view 
 of the marked decrease of Luke's agreement with Mark. In other words 
 the supposition is raised that an account of an event, although told also 
 in Mark, may, if related in considerably different terms, be taken from 
 a somewhat extensive and complete non-Markan Passion-history. 
 
 As to whether the Passion-history came to the evangelist in oral or «- 
 in written form, it is not possible to decide on the basis of the evidence 
 yet adduced. But the preservation of an oral cycle in a form sufficiently 
 fixed to outweigh the definite arrangement of the written Markan docu- 
 ment is a sufficiently difficult hypothesis. The character of certain of 
 the interpolations, also, appears to indicate that the evangelist must have 
 been dealing not with one written source only, but with two. <_ 
 
 99 
 
30 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 It must therefore be concluded that for a considerable portion of the 
 materials of his Passion-narrative the third evangelist possessed a second 
 narrative — possibly a cycle of oral tradition, but more probably a written 
 docvunent — with a fixed form and unity of its own. This source, since 
 it deals exclusively with scenes of Jesus' life laid in Jerusalem, will for 
 the rest of this study be designated as the "Jerusalem source" and indi- 
 cated by the letter "J." 
 
 100 
 
CHAPTER III 
 THE NON-MARKAN MATERIALS IN THE PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 It now becomes our task to determine more exactly just what 
 materials are to be assigned to the Jerusalem source. In this task the 
 first and most prominent criterion of non-Markan materials must, of 
 course, be found in want of agreement with the Second Gospel; and all 
 of the materials which are peculiar to Luke, with a considerable portion, 
 at least, of those which are only remotely parallel to our earUest Gospel, 
 must be regarded as of non-Markan origin, even when not assignable 
 to J upon more specific grounds. But, since narratives of the Passion- 
 history must run closely parallel, it must also be regarded as possible 
 that materials more closely in agreement with Mark are also either drawn 
 from J or employed to replace similar materials that must have stood in 
 that source also. The materials of our study may be divided, therefore, 
 according to their agreement with the Second Gospel, into three classes:' 
 
 Class I. Materials peculiar to Luke. 
 
 Class II. Materials in which there is but a sUght agreement with 
 the Markan parallel. 
 
 Class III. Materials in which the agreement is fairly close. 
 
 However, while the first criterion of non-Markan origin is this want 
 of agreement, it is evident both that mere remoteness from Mark is not 
 sufficient ground for assigning materials to J, and also that materials 
 not thus dissimilar to Mark may upon other grounds be assigned to J. 
 Since, as we have seen (p. 19), Luke habitually uses his sources in blocks 
 of considerable size, a strong presumption is created that materials which 
 stand near to, or in any sort of connection with, the materials clearly 
 assignable to a non-Markan source were also drawn from the same source. 
 Indeed, this is the chief significance of the general want of agreement with 
 
 ' For list see Appendix I, lists I, II, and III. A satisfactory basis for the 
 discrimination of "remote parallels" is hardly to be discovered, as the parallelism 
 depends upon more than the merely mechanical fact of agreement in language; for 
 such agreement may consist entirely in unimportant words, or, on the other hand, 
 slight agreement in the key-words may be of great importance. As an arbitrary 
 means of discrimination, however, agreement in 40 per cent of the language in 
 narrative sections (including parables) and in 50 per cent of the words in discourse 
 passages (except the narrative portion of parables) has been taken as "close 
 parallelism. " 
 
 [101 31 
 
32 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 Mark throughout the section Luke 2 2 : 14 — 24 : 1 1 . This fact can hardly 
 be too strongly emphasized. To the mechanical fact of diversity from 
 the Markan version there must be added, therefore, further criteria 
 by which the J materials of the Passion-narrative may be discriminated. 
 These principles of discrimination will be: 
 
 i) That the material corrects or alters in a significant degree the 
 Markan account ; 
 
 2) that it has definite narrative relations which cannot be accounted 
 for by the Markan source; 
 
 3) that it has definite discourse relations which cannot be accounted 
 for by the Markan source; 
 
 4) that its context contains J materials; 
 
 5) that it betrays a point of view similar to J, or is otherwise related 
 to the J materials ; or 
 
 6) that, while non-Markan, the material must have had some 
 source more definite than floating traditions (principle of economy of 
 hypothesis). 
 
 It is now our task to examine in detail the materials of the Passion- 
 narrative, and by the application of these principles to discriminate such 
 of them as appear to have been drawn from some non-Markan source of 
 definite order and form, that is, from J. But since the chief criterion 
 of such assignment must still be want of agreement with Mark, our 
 method must be first to seek in each section of the narrative for some 
 materials of Class I or Class II (which show this want of agreement), 
 and then to determine the application to them, and to the remaining 
 materials of the section, of the principles of discrimination. 
 
 It must be noted, also, that the J source, equally with the Markan, 
 is liable to editorial revision, and that we may often expect to find mate- 
 rials which may well have been drawn from J standing in the narrative 
 in language which is largely that of the evangehst. But such materials 
 must, of course, be regarded in our examination of the J source, as must 
 also even those cases where it is evident that something has been omitted 
 from J or replaced by a bit of Markan material. 
 
 Turning now to a consideration of the Passion-narrative, it has 
 already been observed that in respect of agreement with Mark it falls 
 into four sections, the first (Luke 19:1-27) containing no Mark-parallel 
 materials, the second (Luke 19:28 — 22:13) possessing considerable 
 agreement with Mark, the third (Luke 22:14 — 24:11) but remotely 
 parallel to Mark, and the fourth (Luke 24: 13-53) extending beyond the 
 point where our original Mark breaks off. The first of these seems rather 
 
 102 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 33 
 
 to have been drawn from P than from J; for it stands previous to the 
 triumphal entry (the natural beginning of a Passion-gospel), and its 
 affinities are rather with P materials. The idea of repentance as effect- 
 ive in securing salvation is shared by the incident of Zacchaeus with 
 the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14), and the 
 parabolic form of the second incident (Luke 19: 11-27) connects it rather 
 with P than with J, since J contains no other parable. In the second 
 section, also, it will be observed that the non-Markan materials are 
 inserted mainly in two blocks (cf. principle 3, p. 19), the first (Luke 
 19:37-44) describing Jesus' appearance in Jerusalem, and the second 
 (Luke 21 : 12-38) containing an Apocalyptic Discourse. These materials 
 must be examined more closely. 
 
 I. JESUS ' PUBLIC MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM 
 
 1. Jesus' approach to Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-40). — This section 
 contains at least two and one-half verses of Class I, peculiar to Luke, 
 that is, vss. 37a, 39, 40. These must be assigned to J upon principle 
 2, since a further narrative setting is needed to explain Jesus' presence 
 in Jerusalem and to describe the reason for the Pharisees' vexation. But 
 the presence of these is sufficient to render probable the presence of other 
 J materials also. Verse 37, it will be noticed, contains not a single 
 agreement with Mark, and it is hkely, therefore, that the whole verse, 
 and not merely the very definite designation of the site, was drawn from J. 
 But vs. 37 hardly gives an adequate occasion for the anger of the Phari- 
 sees, for there Jesus is hailed simply for his mighty works; so that vs. 38, 
 with its ascription to Jesus of greater honor, is necessary to the J context 
 (cf. principle 2). This verse, moreover, while belonging to Class III, 
 shows such free recasting and such diversity in the order of the common 
 words that its agreements should be explained rather by a common 
 reminiscence of the Old Testament language than from the Markan 
 source. The block vss. 37-40 may therefore be ascribed to J as a whole; 
 but even this lacks an adequate introduction and setting. Verses 
 29-36 are plainly drawn from the Markan source; but vs. 28 contains a 
 detail which is not explicit in Mark, and which is necessary to the J 
 block which follows. This too may therefore be assigned to J (principles 
 2, 4), although probably largely editorial in its present language, and 
 though the opening of the J narrative (if it did begin at this point) 
 must have been a more extended fixing of the scene. 
 
 2. Jesus' lament over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44). — This section 
 is entirely from Class I, and is of such nature that its independent 
 
 103 
 
34 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 transmission in oral tradition would not be difi&cult. It betrays the 
 same interest in the Fall of Jerusalem which actuates other portions 
 of J (cf. Luke 21 : 20-24; 23 : 27-31) and appears in no other portion of 
 the Gospel (Luke 13: 34-35* even, implies a spiritual, not a physical, 
 disaster). It may therefore (principle 5) be assigned to J. 
 
 3. Jesus' public ministry in Jerusalem (Luke 19:47-48). — The 
 account of the Cleansing of the Temple is obviously Markan, and seems 
 to exclude any considerable period of activity by Jesus in Jerusalem. 
 But these verses, of Class II agreement, though in their present form 
 considerably rewrought, contain a number of elements not found in 
 Mark. Chief of these is the indication of a longer period of ministry 
 in Jerusalem than the short week usually accepted on the basis of Mark 
 and John.' As this appears again in J (?) materials (principle 5; see 
 page 74), the verses may have been drawn from J. Moreover, they 
 stand in the same context with (principle 4), and seem to form the 
 conclusion to (principle 2), the block of J materials just preceding, and 
 may therefore be ascribed to J. But editorial handling, and perhaps 
 interpolation of a few Markan elements, must remain an admitted 
 possibiUty. 
 
 4. The "Stone of Stumbling''' (Luke 20:17-18). — The comment, 
 "everyone that falleth on that stone," etc., verse 18, is non-Markan, 
 Class I; but it has no particular connection with the preceding J mate- 
 rials. In vs. 17 (Class II) only the quotation agrees with Mark; so there 
 may possibly have been no use of the Markan source. Moreover, vs. 18 
 requires some previous definition, and it seems probable that the two 
 verses circulated together, perhaps in some volume of "christological 
 prophecies," like the later tKKoyal of MeUto of Sardis (Eus. H.E. iv. 26. 
 13), or the Testimonia of Cyprian, and that the presence of the prophecy 
 in both sources was the nexus for the insertion of vs. 18 here, although 
 it had no bearing upon the theme of the parable. 
 
 5. Jesus and the Intellectuals (Luke 20:20-38). — In this passage 
 there are two verses of Class I (34, 350, 366) and three more of Class 
 II (20, 26, 356-36(1), Verses 20, 26 are connected with one another by 
 the use in each of the phrase kwiKa^eadai avrov 'Koyov (prmaTos), which 
 occurs nowhere else in the New Testament {kiriKan^avtadai is a charac- 
 teristic Lukan word, but in a novel sense here) ; and together they con- 
 stitute an epitome of the attempt to involve Jesus in difficulties, which 
 follows well upon the last J passage (Luke 19 : 47-48). The motive in the 
 two verses is different — in vs. 20 to compromise Jesus in the eyes of the 
 
 ' Cf. J. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Lucae, p. no. 
 
 104 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 35 
 
 Roman authorities, in vs. 26 of the people — but undoubtedly both of these 
 tilings were necessary; and such editorial expansion as we have here, if 
 the only source be Markan, is not usual with Luke, whose tendency is 
 rather to slight abbreviation. But the hypothesis that the purpose of 
 these verses is to serve as an epitome of the attacks is shaken by the 
 inclusion of vss. 34-36 in the same source ; so it must be with large reser- 
 vations that the verses are included in the J materials (principle 6); 
 while vss. 21-25, in spite of the peculiar word (ftopos (a mere improvement 
 of the Latinism /c^wos), of which Bemhard Weiss' makes much, are 
 certainly derived simply from Mark. 
 
 So also is the problem of the Woman with Seven Husbands (vss* 
 27-33) ; but the three following verses (34-36) present a problem. Verses 
 34-350, 366 contain elements not found at all in Mark, and must there- 
 fore be placed in Class I, and the remainder are in but general agreement 
 with Mark. But they are incomplete as they stand, and require some 
 connection (perhaps a widow's query regarding marriage in the future 
 state, or possibly a command to celibacy); yet they do not seem to 
 connect with any contiguous J materials. However, the passage can 
 hardly be merely an editorial expansion, for its oracular form and its 
 balanced construction give it a more original appearance than the Mark 
 parallel, and it cannot have stood alone. Either, therefore, it must 
 be assumed to be a more original form of the Markan source, or it must 
 be assigned (principle 6) to some portion of J. Verses 37-38 show no 
 more than the usual amount of editorial revision of Markan materials; 
 and the rest of the chapter is plainly drawn from the Markan source. 
 
 II. THE APOCALYPTIC DISCOURSE 
 
 It has long been recognized that the Lukan version of the Apoca- 
 lyptic Discourse differs very considerably from the Markan version, 
 which is largely followed by the First Gospel. Attention has been cen- 
 tered, in particular, upon the closer definition of the siege of Jerusalem 
 in the Lukan account; but it has generally been taken for granted that 
 here the third evangelist was recasting the Markan prediction of the 
 desecration of the Temple in view of his own knowledge of the events of 
 the destruction of the city. But it has already been shown (see p. 26) 
 that this hypothesis is hardly adequate and that there is reason to believe 
 that Luke was making use, in this very passage, not of one documentary 
 source, but of two. We may with reason, therefore, seek still other J 
 materials in the discourse. 
 
 * Bemhard Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, pp. 213 flf. 
 
 105 
 
36 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 As peculiar materials (Class I) may be listed vss. i8, 24, 25J-260, 
 28; and as remote parallels (Class II) vss. 11-16, 19-20, 21J-22, 236, 
 34-36. These two groups of materials are sufficient to form a defi- 
 nitely constructed discourse; and therefore (principle 3) so far as they 
 are not Markan they should be ascribed to J. The presence of materials 
 of Class I creates a presumption that those of Class II also are non- 
 Markan; but these must be more closely examined. 
 
 I. The persecution of the disciples (Luke 21:12-19). — ^^ this section 
 we may start from the single peculiar verse (18). This is here usually 
 interpreted of spiritual salvation;' but it must be observed that it is. 
 elsewhere always used, not only in the Old Testament (I Sam. 14:45; 
 II Sam. 14:11; I Kings 1:52), but also in Luke (Luke 12:7; Acts 
 27:34) of physical preservation; therefore while this phrase must here 
 have early received a spiritual interpretation, it would yet seem to have 
 been intended literally in the first instance. Such a literal interpretation 
 agrees, furthermore, with the expression in vs. 15 of the confidence that 
 the inspiration of the Christian would carry him through all dangers and 
 give him irresistible eloquence. Indeed, joining vss. 15 and 18, we have a 
 self-consistent and coherent context. This, however, throws suspicion 
 upon vss. 16-17, which interrupt this connection. Verse 17 is in entire 
 agreement with Mark and may be dismissed at once as drawn from that 
 source; but vs. 16 stands upon the border line of agreement and has been 
 listed in Class II. It contains, however, no ideas (save the addition of 
 <j>lko}v) not present in the Markan parallel, and its want of agreement in 
 language is largely due to the Lukan tendency to generalize (cf. Luke 
 18: 29 = Mark 10: 29), which gives it a secondary appearance, aside from 
 its agreements with Mark. Since it moreover flatly contradicts vs. 18, it 
 is probably Markan. Verse 14 is closely connected with, and essential to, 
 vs. 15, and therefore (principle 3) assigned to J. So, also, the first clause 
 of vs. 12, which is quite different in language from the Markan parallel; 
 but the latter clauses of this same verse contain many agreements with 
 Mark, and may be interpolations from that source, though the only 
 sign of conflation here is a shght degree of redundancy. But vs. 13 is an 
 entire recasting of the Markan phrase and probably (principles i, 4) 
 from J. So in a greater degree vs. 19, which concludes the paragraph; 
 for while the Markan version refers plainly to salvation at the final 
 consummation (reXos), this verse appears to refer rather to an imminent 
 and a physical salvation, thus connecting with vs. 18 (principles i, 3, 5). 
 
 ' Cf., for example, Plummet, Si. Luke, p. 480; B. Weiss, op. cit., p. 273; Well- 
 hausen, op. cit., p. 117, etc. 
 
 106 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 37 
 
 Thus in the paragraph Luke 21:12-19 we have a J discourse with 
 Markan interpolations in vss. 16-17 and perhaps i2bc. 
 
 2. The destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24). — The first part 
 of this paragraph has already been discussed (p. 26) and vss. 20, 21b 
 assigned to J. This assignment is further supported by the presence 
 of vss. 22, 24, which are from Class I. Verse 236 (Class II) seems closely 
 connected with vs. 24 (principle 3), while vs. 23a is in entire agreement 
 with Mark and probably, like vs. 21a, drawn from that source; since, 
 while it does not interrupt the connection, it is not essential to it. 
 This paragraph also, then, is drawn from J, with Markan interpolations 
 in vss. 2ia, 23a. 
 
 3. The overthrow of the Gentiles (Luke 21 : 25-28). — In this paragraph 
 there are two verses {2^b-26a, 28) of Class I materials and two verses 
 {2$a, 266-27) of Class III. Between vss. 27 and 28 there is an obvious 
 contradiction;' for it is a decided anticlimax to bid the faithful to begin 
 to hope after the Parousia of their Lord, the central point of their hope, 
 has come to pass. Here also, therefore, we have conflation of two sources, 
 and to vs. 28 we may join (principle 3) its necessary introduction, vss. 
 2$b-2(ia. Verse 25a also, although of Class III, presents but a sHght 
 similarity to the Markan parallel, and may well have belonged to J; 
 but vs. 266 agrees with Matthew (Matt. 24 : 2gc) and is probably, like 
 the verse that follows it, Markan. In this paragraph then we have a 
 J discourse with one interpolation from Mark, vss. 266-27. 
 
 4. Introduction of the Apocalyptic Discourse in J (Luke 21:5-11). 
 — The paragraph Luke 21:5-11 is largely parallel to Mark, although 
 treated with considerable freedom in editorial revision, and showing 
 considerable less agreement with Mark than does the corresponding 
 passage in Matthew. There are few added ideas not implied in Mark; 
 most important of these are avadrjuacLv in vs. 5, the addition 6 xatpos 
 ijyjLKev .... oTrto-o) avrciv in vs. 8, and the latter clause of vs. 11. The 
 first of these, however, is not significant, and the second may easily be an 
 editorial reminiscence from the general fund of apocalyptic. The fact, 
 further, that a doublet of vs. 6b, in Luke 19 : 446, has already been ascribed 
 to J supports the hypothesis of Markan origin (cf. pp. 17-18), and also 
 suggests that Luke 19:41-44 may have formed the original introduction 
 to the Apocalyptic Discourse in J. And that paragraph does indeed 
 form a smooth connection with the discourse, if the intervening frag- 
 ments of materials possibly derived from J be omitted. 
 
 ' Cf. Bemhard Weiss, op. cit., p. 275. 
 
 107 
 
38 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 However, in vs. lo there is a new introduction — rbn iKi'^iv avrois — 
 and the remainder of the verse, while in total agreement with Mark, 
 is merely an Old Testament quotation (cf. Isa. 19:2); so that, omitting 
 vs. iia as interpolated by the evangehst or a later scribe from Mark, we 
 have in vss. 10, 116 a sufl&cient introduction for the discourse, which may 
 very possibly be assigned to J. 
 
 5. The lesson of the coming disaster (Luke 21:34-36). — There can 
 be no doubt that Luke 21 : 29-33 ^^^ entirely Markan; the exact agree- 
 ment of the application, verses 32-33, with Mark, in language and in 
 order, is sufficient proof, while greater editorial freedom is usually to 
 be expected in the narrative portion of a parable (cf. Luke 8:4-15 and 
 parallels). 
 
 Verses 34-36 stand in the same position as a Markan warning; but 
 here the similarity ends, and this exhortation should be ascribed there- 
 fore to J as the conclusion of that version of the discourse (principle 3). 
 
 6. Conclusion of the discourse (Luke 21:37-38). — These two verses 
 find a remote parallel, much less complete, in Mark 11 : 19; but the two 
 facts of considerable expansion and of transposition to this location 
 (principle i), with the connection of these verses with J materials 
 (principle 4), would seem to indicate that these verses, though perhaps 
 editorial in their present form, were drawn from J. To this evidence 
 must be added the fact that here again, as in 19:47 and 22:39 
 (principle 5; but also in 20:1), Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem is repre- 
 sented as having been one of considerable duration. 
 
 It would therefore appear that we have in the Apocalyptic Discourse 
 of Luke largely an apocalypse from the J source, which probably included 
 Luke 21:10, lib, 12a, 13-15, 18-20, 216-22, 23&-26a, 28, 34-38; and 
 which was interpolated, by the evangelist probably, from the Markan 
 source. 
 
 III. THE LAST SUPPER AND THE FAREWELL DISCOURSE 
 
 The next considerable block of materials not paralleled in Mark 
 (Class I) is found in the twenty-second chapter. Here the amount of 
 peculiar materials (Luke 22 : 15-17, 2'jab, 28-32, 35-38) is so considerable 
 as to constitute really another discourse, and this discourse (Luke 
 22:24-38) has a definite construction of its own: first, the attention is 
 diverted from the honors of discipleship to its responsibilities (vss. 24-27) ; 
 then the promise is given of due rewards for responsibihties already met 
 (vss. 28-30), followed by an affirmation of the peculiar responsibility of 
 the leader in view of the peril of all (vss. 31-32); and finally there is a 
 
 108 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 39 
 
 solemn warning of the reality of that peril (vss. 35-38). This Farewell 
 Discourse, like that of the Fourth Gospel, is brought into connection 
 with the Last Supper. 
 
 I. The Last Stepper (Luke 22:14-23). — In this section there is a 
 problem of the text which it is not our present province to solve; vss. 
 196-20 are bracketed by Westcott and Hort as a "Western non- 
 interpolation," but are accepted by von Soden and by Tischendorf; 
 while Harnack' argues that the evangelist who incorporated Luke 24 : 30 
 and Acts 27:35 could hardly have omitted here the breaking of the bread. 
 On the other hand vss. 19-20 are in very close agreement with I Cor. 
 II : 23-25, and it is necessary either to agree with Wellhausen^ that they 
 were interpolated from that source by a later hand, simply because the 
 Lukan account in vss. 14-18 varied so greatly from the familiar ritual of 
 the Eucharist, or to suppose that Luke himself, the companion of Paul, 
 has here inserted the ritual familiar to both of them. In either case 
 the verses would seem to have been drawn from the oral tradition of the 
 ritual rather than from a more connected historical narrative. The 
 problem remains, however, whether the division is to be made at 
 the beginning of vs. 19 with Wellhausen, or after the words to acofxa fiov, 
 as by Westcott and Hort; for in the latter case there is involved a 
 transposition of the order of the elements which must likewise be 
 attributed to J (principle i). It may be noted that the phenomena of 
 literary agreement (the close agreement with I Corinthians in particular) 
 favor Wellhausen's explanation; but here, as elsewhere, we shall not 
 go back of the Westcott-Hort text.^ 
 
 The section falls into two halves, the Supper (vss. 14-20) and the 
 Announcement of the Betrayal (vss. 21-23); the transposition of the two 
 events from their Markan order is evidence (principle i; cf. literary 
 principle i, p. 19) that both portions stood in the J source. In the 
 former portion there are: of Class I agreements, vss. 15-16, and perhaps 
 vs. 17; of Class II, vss. 14, 17; of Class III, vss. i8-i9a. Of these it is 
 evident that vss. 14-16 are drawn from J, and since the remark in vs. 17 
 is so different from that reported by Mark, this too is probably drawn 
 from J. Verse 18 agrees with Mark in 14 of 21 words, or 66 per cent; 
 
 ' Luke the Physician, p. 76; Lukas der Arzt, p. 53. 
 
 'Op. ciL, pp. 121 f. 
 
 3 If vss. 19-20 be accepted as original to the Third Gospel, the duplication of the 
 ritual may perhaps be explained by the suggestion that the evangelist regarded the J 
 version, vss. 15-17 (and 18 ?), as an account of, or a ritual for, the Agape, and inserted 
 in addition the familiar ritual of the Eucharist. 
 
 109 
 
40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 but it also agrees with vs. 16 in 10 words, or 48 per cent. This 
 suggests, since repetition is a characteristic of J (cf. Luke 23:4, 14, 22; 
 23:16, 22; and p. 63), that vs. 18, whose similarity to Mark does not 
 pass the limits of agreement for a doublet, is really a "veiled doublet" 
 and was drawn from the J source. Verse 19a, if we follow the 
 Westcott-Hort text, although it agrees with Mark in 12 of 14 words, 
 or 86 per cent (and in 10 words, 70 per cent, with I Corinthians), 
 must be assigned to J upon principle i, since a transposition must in- 
 volve both of the transposed elements. Verses 1 8-1 9a may, however, 
 have been affected by the Markan language. 
 
 In the latter portion of the section, vss. 21-23, we find two verses of 
 Class II (21, 23) and one of Class III (22). The latter is probably a 
 Markan interpolation; but vss. 21, 23, sufficient in themselves to relate 
 the incident, are probably drawn from J, since, as we have seen 
 above, the transposition proves J to have contained some accoimt of 
 the incident (principle i). Verse 23, however, a concluding sentence, 
 may have received considerable editorial re-working. 
 
 We have, then, in this section a J account in the main, with a Markan 
 interpolation in vs. 22, and perhaps a substitution of Markan for J 
 materials in vss. 18-190. 
 
 2. Introduction to the account of the Last Supper (Luke 22:8). — 
 It will now be observed that this J account must have had, in its original 
 form, some fuller introduction, to which reference is made in vs. 14 
 in the phrase ore kykvero ri wpa; and of this we must seek traces. The 
 preceding paragraph, Luke 22 : 7-13, agrees with Mark with unusual fidel- 
 ity, however, save in one particular: in vs. 8 there is a specific designation 
 of the two disciples by name, and the conversation is so recast that it 
 is here Jesus, not, as in Mark, the disciples, who introduces the subject 
 of preparing the Supper. Neither of these traits passes the limits of 
 Luke's editorial treatment;' but their coincidence here (principle i), 
 together with the fact that the verse does form a good introduction to 
 the account of the Supper (principle 2), may indicate that vs. 8, with 
 the possible exception of the words to Trdaxa, rests upon the J source. 
 
 In Luke 22:1-6 there are also two verses (3-4) belonging to Class 
 II; but the entire section is more or less introductory and therefore less 
 liable to close agreement with Mark, and these verses contain no new 
 elements, except the specification of 'Laravas (which is probably doctrinal) 
 
 ' For specific designation cf. Luke 8:45, where the context, vs. 46, has a similar 
 change in the dialogue. For the latter cf. also Luke 9:7, and the compression of 
 conversations in Luke 9: 12-15, 46-48. 
 
 110 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 41 
 
 and of the (XTparriyol (a point of fact which might have been added by any 
 well-informed pilgrim to Jerusalem), and they do not stand in any con- 
 nection with the J materials which precede or follow. Therefore they 
 are hardly to be assigned to J. 
 
 3. The greatness of responsibility (Luke 22:24-27). — This section 
 has a remote parallel in Mark 10:42-45; but vs. 2'jab belongs to Class 
 I, and the rest of the section to Class II. This fact, together with the 
 transposition (principle i), and the place of the section in the Farewell 
 Discourse (principle 3), is sufficient to fix this section as J material. 
 Verse 24, however, in its agreement with Luke 9:46, would appear to 
 have received considerable revision. 
 
 4. The reward oj responsibility (Luke 22:28-30). — ^This section has 
 no Markan parallel, though remotely paralleled in Matthew (Matt. 
 19: 28). As a part of the discourse (principle 3) it is to be assigned to J. 
 
 5. A warning to Peter (Luke 22:31-34). — In this section vss. 
 31-32 are from Class I, vs. 33 from Class II, and vs. 34 from Class 
 III. As a part of the discourse, then, vss. 31-32, at least, are to be 
 assigned to J. Between these verses, however, and vs. 33 there appears 
 to be a break in the sense: the former speak of temptation, the latter 
 of physical peril; the former of the danger of aU the disciples (vficHv), 
 and of Peter in terms similar to those of Matthew 16:18, the latter 
 apparently of Peter's peculiar peril, as in the Markan version; the 
 former addresses him as Simon, and vs. 34 as Peter. Moreover, the 
 coimection of vss. 35-38 with the prophecy of the peril of all in vs. 32 
 is far more intimate than that with the prediction of Peter's disloyalty 
 in vs. 34. Thus vs. 34 appears to have no inherent connection with the 
 J discourse. Verse 33, it is true, might be regarded as a parenthesis in 
 that discourse; but it has the same secondary aspect that appears in 
 other Markan interpolations (cf., for example, 21:16). There remains 
 no reason for regarding vs. 34 as other than Markan. 
 
 6. The peril of the disciples (Luke 22:35-38). — This section is 
 Class I material and likewise connected with the Farewell Discourse; 
 it is therefore (principles 1,3) to be ascribed to J. 
 
 7. Conclusion of the Farewell Discourse (Luke 22:39). — The trans- 
 position of the departure from the upper room to a point after the warn- 
 ing to Peter (cf. Mark 14: 26) would indicate (principle i) that vs. 39 stood 
 in J. Moreover, the phrase Kara to Was connects with other indications 
 of a rather extended stay in Jerusalem (principle 5), and it may be 
 concluded that the materials of this conclusion of the Farewell Discourse 
 were drawn from J. 
 
 Ill 
 
42 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 IV. EVENTS CONNECTED WITH THE ARREST OF JESUS 
 
 1. Jesus^ Spiritual struggle (Luke 22:40-46). — In this section there 
 are no materials from Class I (since vss. 43-44 are rejected as a "Western 
 interpolation"), but the presence of additional exact details (oxret \ldov 
 fioK-qp, airo Trjs Xutttjs) and the transposition of the warning in vs. 40 (cf. 
 Mark 14:38) seem to indicate the presence of J materials. The trans- 
 position, indeed, is sufi&cient to prove the derivation of vs. 40 from J 
 (principle i), whether it be regarded as a real transposition or as an 
 instance of the inclusion of the two members of a doublet (cf. vs. 46) 
 drawn from different sources. 
 
 In vs. 41-46, however, besides the addition of exact details (which 
 appears as a J characteristic in 19:37, and later in 22 : 56-60, and is never 
 so positive as here in earlier editorial additions, even in the section Luke 
 9: 28-37), there is also a change in the form of Jesus' words of submission 
 (vs. 42b) which seems rather an independent rendering in translation than 
 a natural editorial improvement; and the repetition of the phrase of 
 warning, in slightly varying language, marks another J characteristic 
 (principle 5 ; cf . p. 63), which suggests that both vs. 40b and vs. 46b were 
 drawn from J. Further, vss. 41, 45 are only "remote parallels " (Class II), 
 and the only close agreement with Mark is in the sayings (vss. 42, 46), 
 which — the former for its sentimental associations, and the latter for 
 its gnomic import — must both have been widely circulated. Finally, 
 Luke reduces the number of Jesus' appeals to the disciples (principle i ?) 
 by the omission of four verses of Mark. It seems probable, therefore, 
 that most of this account was drawn from J; the reference to the "cup" 
 (vs. 42a) may be Markan; but the " cup " seems to have been a familiar 
 feature of the Passion-story (cf. John 18:11; also Mark 10:38). 
 
 2. Jesus betrayed and arrested (Luke 22:47-54^), — The peculiar 
 materials of this section (vss. 48, 49, 51, 53c) demand a narrative setting, 
 and hence we may be sure (principle 2) that J contained an account of 
 the event. To Class II, however, belong only vss. 476, 52a; to Class III, 
 vss. 47a, 50, 526, 53^6. Conflation may then be suspected here, and certain 
 signs of it are to be found. First, vs. 50 is quite unessential to the con- 
 nection of vss. 49 and 51a, indeed slightly interrupts it, and the specific 
 detail added by Luke that it was the right ear is paralleled by a similar 
 editorial addition in Luke 6:6; so the verse may well enough have been 
 drawn from Mark. But vs. 516 is dependent upon vs. 50; therefore, while 
 such a reference to heahng might have been made by the evangelist upon 
 his own responsibility (cf. 4:40; 9:11), or he may even have been per- 
 sonally acquainted (as perhaps the fourth evangelist was, cf. John 
 
 112 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 43 
 
 i8:io) with the subject of the miracle, yet it is easier to beUeve, since 
 the order of the words in vs. 50 is quite different from the Markan 
 order, that not only the healing, but the stroke that occasioned it, was 
 related in J. 
 
 A more certain sign of conflation is perhaps to be found in the dis- 
 parity of the grounds of complaint in vss. 526 and 53c; in the former Jesus 
 complains because of the show of force made against him, in the latter 
 because of the secrecy of his arrest. But since vs. 52J agrees verbatim 
 with Mark, it must be ascribed to that source, while vs. 53c belongs to 
 Class I and is presumably from J. It is moreover incomplete without 
 some definition of its setting (the initial avrr} refers backward), and is 
 on this account to be referred to J (principle 2). 
 
 In vs. s^ab the phrase kKTeivetp rds xctpas ctti riva occurs, which is 
 found nowhere else in Luke, while his customary locution is cTrijSaXXeii' 
 TCLs xetpas (Luke 20:19; 21:12; Acts 4:3; 5:18; 12:1; 21:27); yet 
 this portion of the verse contains no elements not found in Mark, and 
 it seems to connect with the Markan complaint (vs. 52^) more closely than 
 with the J (vs. 53c). Now vs. 52a is largely editorial and probably based 
 upon a Markan verse (14:436) previously omitted, while the arparriyol rod 
 Upov are mentioned elsewhere (Luke 22:4) in an editorial expansion of 
 Mark. But if these clauses are ascribed to the Markan source, vs. 53c 
 is brought into connection with vs. 51; and it becomes apparent that 
 this connection gives it a real significance as the reason given for the 
 acquiescence expressed in vs. 51a; "Permit even this; for this is their 
 hour — so it is destined. " But this remains hypothetical; and the con- 
 nection would require either that the explanatory clause (vs. 53c) should 
 stand between the two sentences of vs. 51 with a change of the pronoun 
 to the third person (which is indeed just possible), or have had some 
 other indication of a change in the persons addressed. But if the latter 
 be sought we are again thrown back upon vss. 52^, 5306. 
 
 Verse 47a has many agreements with Mark, but differs largely in 
 order of words; and since it is necessary as introducing vss. 476-48, the 
 substance of it, at least, must have stood in J. Verse 54a may be drawn 
 from the Markan document, though the true parallel to Mark 14 : 53a is 
 rather in vs. 666; but the clumsy repetition of ^yayov, ehriyayov is 
 scarcely to be ascribed to the third evangelist, and J can hardly have 
 wanted some mention of the act of arrest (principle 2). The trans- 
 position of the arrest, too (principle i), from the point where it is noted 
 by Mark may have significance; and the verse may be assumed to 
 represent elements from J. We have then in this section a J account 
 
 113 
 
44 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 including substantially vss. 47-49, 5^0., 55C, and probably vss. 50, 
 516, S40&. 
 
 3. Peter's denials (Luke 22:546-62), — In this section again there 
 are no materials of Class I; but vss. 55-56, 58-600, 61a belong to 
 Class II, and there are many non-Markan details: the two precise 
 statements of the interval (ixera fipaxv, diaaraaris uad upas fnas), the 
 change in the second and third speakers designated, and the additional 
 detail in vs. 61 that a glance from Jesus recalled Peter's courage. This 
 wealth of additional detail, more precise than is usually to be found in 
 Lukan editorial revision (cf. pp. 62 f.), together with the general remote- 
 ness of the agreement (principle 6), and above all the transposition of the 
 entire section (principle i), indicates that we are here dealing, at least in 
 part, with materials from J. If so, there must be included in these, by 
 reason. of the two definitions of the intervals, the three denials, vss. 
 56-6oa; introductory to these vs. 55 (but not 546, which agrees closely 
 with Mark and is unnecessary to the introduction); and as a con- 
 clusion at least vs. 61a and perhaps even vs. 6ib — Kal vTrenvqadr] 6 U. rod 
 pifnaros rod Kvplov — though vs. 62 will form a sufficient conclusion. 
 Verses 60b, 6ic are not to be ascribed to J, however; for the previous 
 mention of the cock (vs. 34) has been excluded from that source (prin- 
 ciple 5), and since they belong to Class III the Markan source is 
 sufficient to account for them. 
 
 4. Jesus in the hands of the police (Luke 22:63-65). — This section 
 also is transposed with reference to both the Denials of Peter and the 
 Trial of Jesus, and hence (principle i) it must have stood, in part at 
 least, in J. But it contains no materials closely resembling Mark, and its 
 general agreement is but 18 per cent; so it may be ascribed entire to J. 
 
 V. THE TRIAL OF JESUS 
 
 As regards the trial of Jesus the account of Luke differs very consid- 
 erably from that of Mark; for the trial by the Jewish authorities is 
 removed from the night to the morning following, and to the trial by 
 Pilate, of which a much fuller account is given, is added the examination 
 of Jesus by Herod. With the respective historical value of the two ver- 
 sions we are not now concerned; it must only be remarked that these 
 divergences are so great that it is inconceivable that Luke did not have 
 some other authority for the correction of the Markan account, and at 
 nearly every point of the legal process. 
 
 I. Examination of Jesus by the Jewish authorities (Luke 22:66-71). 
 — This event the third evangelist definitely transfers from the night to 
 
 114 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 45 
 
 the following morning, and by omission of the verdict (cf . Mark 14 : 64) 
 reduces it from the dignity of a trial to the level of a mere grand-jury 
 process for preparing the indictment/ He omits, further, all reference 
 to the search for testimony and the false evidence offered (Mark 14:55- 
 60). In addition, there is evidence here of conflation; for the bold claim 
 of vs. 69, not the noncommittal and cynical response of vs. 70,^ is the 
 real occasion for the verdict of vs. 71. 
 
 The Class I materials are vss. 676-68; Class II, vs. 70. Further dis- 
 agreement with Mark appears, however, in the recasting and expansion 
 of the dialogue in a manner unexampled outside of the Passion-narrative, 
 especially in the repetition of the direct interrogation, but also in the 
 transposition of so many details that the nearest Markan parallels 
 run in the order Mark 14 = 53^ 53^» 616, (6ia), 626, 616, 62a, 63. It is 
 evident, then, that much of the section must be drawn from J. Verses 
 69 and 71, however, hang together, as do vss. 67-68 and 70; hence 
 vss. 69, 71 must be regarded as Markan interpolations into the J 
 account. Verse 666 is quite secondary, in the indefinite reference to 
 *' their sanhedrin," and probably Markan; but vs. 66a contains a refer- 
 ence, not found in Mark, to the Trpea^vrkpLOP rod XaoO, and may be the 
 wanting introduction to the J account. Further conclusion of the 
 account after vs. 70 is not needed in view of 23:1-2. Vexed at Jesus' 
 noncommittal and defiant attitude, the court adjourns in disgust, 
 resolved to press old charges against him before the governor. 
 
 2. Jesus arraigned before Pilate and Herod (Luke 23:1-16). — In 
 this section vss. 4-15 relate incidents entirely unknown to Mark, and 
 only vs. 3 shows any appreciable agreement with the Second Gospel, but 
 this is very close. Verses 1-2 are but remotely parallel to Mark (Class 
 II) and, since they would be necessary to any account of the trial 
 (principle 2) and vs. 2 is transposed (principle i), may be ascribed to J. 
 Verse 3 has 84 per cent of agreement with Mark, and two explanations 
 of it are possible: either the J account here agreed closely with the 
 Markan (which is hardly likely), or Luke chose to substitute this verse 
 for the fuller account which Pilate's reply in vs. 4 seems to indicate as 
 having stood in J. For the rest of the section, while there are in every 
 
 ' Cf. R. W. Husband, The Prosecution of J esus, pp. i^-^i-f Ofr, g. 
 
 * Verse 706 is often interpretecras~a "round affirmation" (cf. Bernhard Weiss, 
 op. cit., p. 223; Feine, Eine vorkanonische Ueherlieferung des Lukas [1891], p. 68, 
 etc.) ; but in view of the fact that in point of want of agreement with Mark it is 
 connected with vss. 67-68, it is rather to be interpreted as quite noncommittal, or 
 even (with Plummer, op. cit., p. 519) as interrogative. 
 
 115 
 
46 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 verse details paralleled in Mark or in other portions of Luke in different 
 connections, it is inconceivable that the evangelist should suddenly have 
 altered his editorial method (see pp. 15-17) to the extent of building up 
 this account out of such scattered hints; and their very transposition 
 to this point (principle i), as well as the originality of the narrative into 
 which they are fitted, is sufficient to prove that we are here dealing 
 with a J narrative. 
 
 3. Jesus condemned by the governor (Luke 23:18-25). — The J 
 account has now left us with the picture of the procurator protesting that 
 Jesus is guiltless ; but it passes on to his crucifixion, and must perforce 
 have had some account of how the two statements are reconciled. We 
 may then expect J materials in this section, which, although parallel 
 to Mark in its general outline, agrees with the Second Gospel in only 
 3 1 words out of 104, or 30 per cent. The demands of the narrative would 
 indeed be satisfied by vss. 23-24, or even by vs. 23 alone. But vs. 22cd 
 contains two clauses {oiibtv alTiov evpov, iraibtvaas awoXvaco) repeated from 
 earlier J sections (principle 5), and these require (principle 2) that at 
 least a part of the colloquy preceding be ascribed to J; but since the 
 only agreement of the passage with Mark in significant words is in 
 vs. 22b {t'l yap KaKov eTrolrjaev) , it is likely that the whole passage is 
 derived from J, with this single interpolation from Mark. 
 
 The references to Barabbas (vss. 18-19, ^5^^) ^-re not, to be sure, at all 
 essential to the narrative, and might easily be suppUed from Mark 
 (even the added detail in vs. 19 — yevofievrjv kv t% TroXet — does not pass the 
 limits of editorial inference) ; but the facts that most of the passage is 
 drawn from J (principle 4), and that here it is the crowds, not the 
 governor, who introduce the bandit's name (principle i), as well as the 
 extreme want of agreement in language (principle 6) in a detail that 
 could not have stood alone, furnish sufficient ground for ascribing this 
 detail of the narrative also to J. 
 
 In vss. 23-25 there is a certain amount of redundancy, and the con- 
 demnation of Jesus is three times imphed : Karlaxvov ai (fxiovai avruv, U. 
 kweKpLvev yeveadai to airrjua avTcov, rbv 'Irjaovv TapkdoiKev tQ de\rip,aTi avToiv. 
 Verse 24, indeed, is sufficient conclusion for the section, and vs. 25 is 
 quite parallel to Mark in thought and in order of expressions, if not in 
 language, and may therefore be Markan. Yet the second of these repe- 
 titions adds definiteness to the first statement, and the third is needed 
 to complete the antithesis of vs. 25, while the repetitiousness is no more 
 than is natural to J (principle 5, cf. p. 63). This entire section, there- 
 fore, with the exception of one phrase, vs. 22b, may be ascribed to J. 
 
 116 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 47 
 
 VI. JESUS ' DEATH AND BURIAL 
 
 1. The route to execution (Luke 22:26-32). — Luke here omits the 
 Markan account of the mocking of Jesus (Mark 15:16-20), but inserts 
 a further prediction relative to the destruction of Jerusalem (23:27-31) 
 entirely without parallel in Mark (Class I), which, by reason of the ref- 
 erence /lit) /cXaiere kir' e/xe, must be fixed in some such setting as this and 
 therefore ascribed (principle 2) to J. Verse 26, however, is a detail not 
 essential to the narrative, and since it is a close parallel to Mark (Class 
 III) there is no reason for supposing it had any other source, while 
 its importance is too slight to suppose that it was transmitted in many 
 of the traditions. Verse 32 is the necessary introduction to vss. 39-43, 
 and a Class II passage, and therefore (principles 1,2) assignable to J. 
 
 2. The crucifixion (Luke 23:33-34). — The crucifixion of Jesus must 
 inherently, and that of the malefactors on grounds of narrative con- 
 tinuity, have stood in the J narrative; but it is equally likely that 
 the relation of these events can hardly have been stated so differently 
 from the Markan version as to appear altogether original. Therefore, 
 since vs. 2>3a, although of Class III agreement, shows considerable 
 divergence in the form of the sentence as well as in the omission of the 
 detail of Jesus' refusal of the drugged wine (Mark 15:23), it may be 
 supposed to represent the J version. The transposition of vs. 336 
 (principle i), as well as its necessary connection with vss. 32 and 39 
 (principle 2), are sufl&cient grounds for ascribing it also to J, aside from 
 its want of agreement with Mark. Verse 34a is rejected by Westcott 
 and Hort as a "Western interpolation." Verse 346 is a secondary 
 detail merely, not hable to frequent transmission, and its appending 
 after the reference to the malefactors creates a want of connection which 
 may indicate conflation ; it may be accounted Markan, therefore. 
 
 3. Jesus ridiculed on the cross (Luke 23:35-43). — In this section 
 there are two blocks of Class I materials: an introductory hint (vs. 
 35a), and the incident of the penitent thief (vss. 39-43), a hint of 
 which however, is also given in Mark (15:326). As respects verbal agree- 
 ment with Mark, vss. 356-37 belong entirely to Class II, and their details 
 are so rearranged that the order of the Markan parallels would stand: 
 Mark 15:31, 32a, 36, 326, 30. Further, Luke gives the whole picture 
 more of a historical color, since the crowds are kept away from the 
 cross (a precaution the Romans must always have had to observe in 
 Judea) and only the Jewish authorities and the Roman guard come into 
 contact with Jesus, while the words attributed to each are appropriate 
 to the part. All this hardly passes the limits of editorial treatment 
 
 117 
 
48 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 if this were Luke's editorial method; but it is not (cf. pp. 19-20), and there- 
 fore the transpositions and the different color of the narrative (principle 
 i), with the want of agreement, indicate a derivation of the paragraph 
 from J. Moreover (principle 2), the taunts of the priests and the soldiery- 
 are the most reasonable occasion of the taunt of the brigand (vs. 39), 
 who must have been in ignorance up to this point of the charges against 
 Jesus. Verse 38 is merely a secondary detail, and since it belongs to 
 Class III is most probably Markan. Its transposition to this, a less 
 suitable position, does not aflfect the narrative, and may be ascribed 
 to accident — interpolation as an afterthought when the evangelist ran 
 his eye over the Markan document to see if he had missed anything of 
 significance. • Possibly it served, in the evangeUst's thought, to explain 
 the taunts of the soldiers (vs. 37), though such postponement of details is 
 not usually his custom (see p. 17). This section then is derived from J, 
 with a Markan interpolation in vs. 38. 
 
 4. Circumstances of Jesus'' death (Luke 23:44-49). — In this section 
 there are Class I materials (vss. 46, 48-49^) sufficient to fix its incorpo- 
 ration in J; but there are also Class III materials in vss. 44-45, 47, 496. 
 It seems that here the amount of agreement corresponds pretty well with 
 the other indications of source. Verses 46, 48 are peculiar details which 
 must have been drawnJ[roin a_jionrMaxka,n source, (pri^^ and 
 
 the Scripture reminiscence of vs. 49a should, with these, also be assigned 
 to J (principle 4), since in his Markan materials Luke nowhere adds 
 editorially any reference to the Old Testament. The secondary details 
 of vss. 44-45-, however, would hardly have been widely transmitted in 
 identical language, and the explanation tov ijXiov eKKeiirovTos is in the 
 manner of the evangelist,' while even the transposition of vs. 456, which 
 does not affect the course of the narrative, may be editorial; these 
 verses, then, may easily have been derived from Mark, as may vs. 496, 
 which closely resembles Mark, and is, to a certain extent, a doublet of vs. 
 49a. Another secondary detail, vs. 47, although a "close parallel" to 
 Mark, and therefore perhaps derived from that source with editorial 
 revision, is yet quite differently put, and shows the verisimilitude char- 
 acteristic of vss. 3 5-3 7 above (principle 5) , while the agreement with Mark 
 is but 44 per cent and consists mainly in unimportant words ; it may, there- 
 fore, be ascribed with large reservations to J. Then in this section, vss. 
 46, 47, 48-49a are to be ascribed to J, and vss. 44-45, 496 are Markan. 
 
 'It may even be due to the misunderstanding of Jesus' cry in Mark (15:34-35); 
 cf. E. A. Abbott in Class. Rev. (December, 1893), p. 443 (quoted in Plummer, op. cit., 
 p. 545); and From Letter to Spirit (Diatessarica, Part III), p. 401, § 1060. 
 
 118 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 49 
 
 5. The entombment (Luke 23:50-54). — This section presents a 
 peculiar problem; some description of the burial of Jesus must be 
 supposed to have stood in J; but in the Lukan account the central 
 details of the story are told in language closely resembling that of Mark, 
 although with a few additional details. A sign of conflation, however, 
 is to be found in the appending of a statement as to the date, as an after- 
 thought at the close, contrary to Luke's usual habit (see p. 17). This 
 detail is non-Markan in language, and its position suggests that it was 
 added from another source when the Markan account had been con- 
 cluded. It must, for these several reasons, be concluded that the core 
 of the incident, vss. 52-536, is here Markan. The evangeHst's reason 
 for here abandoning the source which has furnished the outline of his 
 narrative for nearly two chapters previous is not clear. 
 
 However, Luke can hardly have been following the Markan source 
 when he commenced his account of this incident, else he would, with 
 Mark (15:42), have inserted the indication of the date at the head of 
 his relation, instead of tacking it on at the foot. Hence we may suppose 
 that vss. 50-5 la were derived from J (principle 6), and that after copying 
 these Luke turned to his Markan source for the designation of Joseph (citt^ 
 'ApLfiadaias) and followed it through vs. 536, omitting the account of 
 Joseph's visit to Pilate as superfluous, and that then he returned to J for 
 the statement that the tomb was unoccupied (principle 6), and appended 
 a statement of the date at the point where he found it in J (this would 
 explain the transposition, principle i). 
 
 To resume, while certainty of attribution is not possible in this 
 passage, the addition of important details on the one hand, and the 
 close agreements with Mark on the other, suggest that the materials 
 were drawn from two sources: vss. 516-536 from the Markan, and vss. 
 50-510, 53C-54 from J.' 
 
 6. The ministration of the women (Luke 23:55 — 24:1). — These three 
 transitional verses, although disjoined in Mark, are brought into 
 close connection by Luke. Since they present peculiar problems they 
 may be considered in a section apart. It will first be noted that vss. 
 55-56 belong to Class II in all their parts, while 24:1 is throughout 
 closely parallel to Mark (Class III), both in language (60 per cent of 
 agreement) and in order, and must undoubtedly, therefore, be derived 
 from the Markan source. Verses 55-56, moreover, contain no details 
 
 ' It is, however, possible that vss, sia, 5:^0 are bits of fact picked up at random by 
 the evangelist, and vss. 50, 54 are Markan in origin; yet this fails to explain the 
 present location of vs. 54. 
 
 119 
 
50 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 not satisfied by Mark, and to this extent the section would appear to 
 have been drawn entire from the Markan source. 
 
 There are difficulties, however, with this view. First of these is the 
 transposition of the list of the women to vs. lo of Luke ; for had the evan- 
 gelist intended to give such a list he could hardly, if following the Markan 
 account, have omitted it, even accidentally, at this point in the introduc- 
 tion of his account (where Mark gives it twice) , only to append it later. A 
 second difficulty is the discrepancy regarding the purchase of the spices. 
 Mark impUes (i6:i) that the purchase was made on Saturday evening; 
 but Luke speaks of the women's preparation on Friday afternoon (vs. 56a) 
 and expressly states that on the Sabbath they rested (vs. 566). This dis- 
 crepancy is slight, however, and may be due simply to editorial care- 
 lessness. If the transposition too is due to the derivation of the fist of 
 the women from a non-Markan source, as is the case with vs. 54 above, 
 there remains no pressing reason for supposing that the entire section 
 may not have been derived from the Markan source, save only the remark- 
 able omission of the list at the commencement of the account. This is, 
 however, sufficient ground for the supposition that the substance of this 
 section was drawn from J, but that the language of 24:1 has been modi- 
 fied by the influence of the Markan parallel. 
 
 7. The empty tomb (Luke 24:2-11). — This incident centers rather 
 about the fact of Jesus' burial than about the risen Lord and is connected 
 by the evangelist closely to the preceding sections. 
 
 Here there are numerous signs of non-Markan source. First, the 
 agreement with Mark in vss. 2-9 is but 14 words out of 85, or 17 per 
 cent. Secondly, there are many divergences in the account: Luke 
 tells of two angels instead of one, of the women having previously noted 
 the empty tomb, transforms a promise of reunion in Gahlee to a promise 
 in Galilee of reunion, and informs us, in express contradiction of Mark, 
 that the women did tell the disciples what they had seen. Thirdly, 
 vss. 9, loh recount how the women told the disciples, and appear to be a 
 doublet of the same detail drawn from two dififerent sources, while 
 the position of vs. loa as a tacked-on appendix seems a further sign of 
 conflation, or at least of the use of a non-Markan source. 
 
 It seems, therefore, that vss. 2-9 should be ascribed wholly to J, on the 
 ground of want of agreement with Mark, of discrepancy with the 
 Markan story (principle i), and because J would naturally have contained 
 some resurrection narrative (principle 2). Their only agreement in lan- 
 guage with Mark, the phrase ovk earLv ude dXXd rj-yepdr] in vs. 6, is rejected 
 by Westcott and Hort as a "Western non-interpolation." 
 
 120 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 51 
 
 The list of the women (vs. loa) is parallel (Class III) to Mark; but it 
 differs somewhat in content/ Moreover, the transposition of this detail 
 from the more suitable Markan location where Luke must have found 
 it if he derived it from that source is especially difficult (see p. 17). 
 Therefore, after the analogy of similar appendixes (cf. Luke 23 : 54; also 
 23 : 10, 32, 35), it may be assigned (principle 5) to J. But vs. 106 is a doublet 
 of vs. 9 and therefore hardly to be ascribed to the same source; it may 
 well have been drawn from the Markan document.^ Verse 11 probably 
 belongs with the contiguous (Markan) material (principle 4), but may be 
 editorial (cf. Luke 9:45; 18:34), or even derived from J. 
 
 The section, then, is a unit from J (vss. 2-ioa) with Markan appendix 
 (vss. 106-11). Verse 12 is rejected by Westcott and Hort as a "Western 
 non-interpolation. " This J account must have had some introduction, 
 and this lends further probability to the theory that J materials are 
 represented in the transitional paragraph preceding (23:55 — 24: i). 
 
 VII. THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 
 
 It has already been remarked that in the concluding section of the 
 Passion-narrative, Luke 24:13-53, the parallel portion of Mark is lost; 
 but it is extremely doubtful whether any of these materials were in any 
 case derived from the Markan source; for, first, there are no accounts 
 in which Matthew and Luke agree, and, secondly, the Lucan account 
 deals with appearances of Jesus at Jerusalem, while the Markan seems 
 
 ' The mention of 'iwdi'o might, however, be an early scribal, or even an editorial, 
 addition from Luke 8:3 (cf. the substitution of 'lovdas 'IaKw/3ou in the list of the Twelve, 
 6: 16). The SaXcb/xTj of Mark (16:1), omitted in Mark 15:47 and in Matt. 28:1, maybe 
 a similar textual corruption. 
 
 ^ The Markan parallel is here lost, except as it may be reproduced, like the pre- 
 ceding Markan section, in Matthew. It seems not improbable that Matt. 28:9-10 
 were drawn from the lost conclusion, since an injunction from Jesus himself is most 
 appropriate to the picture of timidity with which Mark now closes, and these verses 
 would connect without a break with the last words of Mark. But, with such a re- 
 assurance, the incredulity of the women is broken down, and they do at last "run 
 and tell the disciples," whence the statements of Matthew (28: Si) and of Luke 
 (vs. 10b) . As far as we may infer, therefore, from the parallel accounts ,it would appear 
 that the view of Goodspeed (cf. Am. Jour. Theol., IX [1905], 484-90) that the lost 
 conclusion of Mark is most nearly reproduced in the conclusion of the First Gospel (ex- 
 cept, of course, vss. 11-15) is more probable than the hypothesis of Rohrbach {Sckluss 
 des Markusevangeliums), Hamack {Text, und Unters., IX [1893], 2,32 f.), and others that 
 was of close kin to the resurrection appearance in John, chap. 21, and the Gospel of 
 Peter. If this be the case, we may find in Luke also materials that may have been 
 drawn from the Markan source. 
 
 121 
 
52 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 to demand Galilean appearances (Mark 14:28; 16:7; and cf. Matt. 
 28:16). (Ji remains to inquire what indications of sources are discover- 
 able, and whether reasons can be advanced for assigning these narra- 
 tives to J. One such is at once apparent: the strong presumption that 
 no Passion-gospel could have omitted some account of the resurrection 
 and the resurrection appearances; yet it might not have included all 
 of this section of the Third Gospel. It appears capable of proof, how- 
 ever, that a number of these narratives must have been derived from 
 some definite source. 
 
 1. The ascension (Luke 24:50-53), — We may begin with one of 
 the strongest instances and work backward. There is a doublet of this 
 account recorded by the same author in Acts 1:9-14; but the two 
 accounts disagree in several particulars. The scene is slightly dif- 
 ferent, opposite Bethany in the Gospel (vs. 50), a Sabbath-day's jour- 
 ney out on the Mount of Olives in Acts (vs. 12); in the Gospel Jesus 
 "parts from" his disciples (vs. 51), in the Acts he is borne in a cloud to 
 heaven (vss. 9-ioa, 11) ; in the Gospel they frequent the Temple (vs. 53), 
 in the Acts, the upper room (vs. 13). This amount of divergence, which 
 is never quite contradiction, however, is yet sufficient to prove that the 
 evangelist had no stereotyped memoriter version of his own which he 
 simply set down in one or the other instance (else he could hardly have 
 accepted the divergent account), but that, in the one case as in the other, 
 he was depending upon some narrative source. But since this could 
 hardly be oral (principle 6), we can most easily suppose that it was J. 
 
 2. The great commission (Luke 24:44-49), — Here the case is sim- 
 ilar. The account in Acts (1:3-8) is in few respects similar to that of 
 the Gospel; the time is different, in the Gospel (vss. 13, 33, 36) it seems 
 to be upon the day of the resurrection, in the Acts it is forty days later 
 (vs. 3); in the Gospel the ''promise of the Father" is given (vs. 49), in 
 the Acts it is to be awaited (vs. 4) ; in the Gospel Jesus' discourse is 
 concerned with the interpretation of his Passion (vss. 44-46), in the Acts, 
 with the affairs of the Kingdom (vs. 3, cf. vs. 6). Almost the only jjoints 
 of agreement are the promise of spiritual power (Luke 24:49; Acts 
 1 :8a) and the commission as "witnesses" (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8b). 
 Therefore, as in the closing section of the Gospel, it appears that these 
 materials may be ascribed (principle 6) to 1. 
 
 3; Jesus' appearance to the disciples (X^uke 24:36-43), — The two 
 sections already discussed and ascribed to J require, however, some 
 account of the appearance of Jesus to his disciples as a setting, and this 
 need is met by the present section, which should therefore (principle 2) 
 
 122 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 53 
 
 be ascribed to the same source. As a further indication that we have to 
 do still with the Passion-source of previous chapters, it should be noted 
 that the connection of these three sections gives us already a " resur- 
 rection Gospel" of some eighteen verses, that is, a quite considerable 
 source, which economy of hypothesis would lead us to connect with the 
 J source preceding. 
 
 4. Jesus' appearance to two obscure disciples (Luke 24:13-35). — 
 It is remarkable that this section, which deals with the appearance 
 of Jesus to two otherwise unknown disciples, should be the longest single 
 narrative in the entire Gospel, while the appearance to Peter is passed 
 over in a single indirect reference (vs. 34) ; and we are led to inquire if 
 there is here any purpose beyond the evangelist's usual narrative inter- 
 est. He has once stated (Luke 1:4) his ulterior motive, and here, if 
 ever, is the place for him to reveal his didactic aim' and to press home his 
 message regarding Jesus, as near the close of his work as the finality of 
 the Ascension will allow. And this narrative has many of the ele- 
 ments of a general survey of the gospel message: there is first the 
 summary of Jesus' career (vss. 19-20) ; second, an estimate of the impres- 
 sion he had made (vs. 21); third, a presentation of the evidence for the 
 resurrection (vss. 22-24); fourth, an indication of the proofs of his mes- 
 siahship (vss. 25-27) ; fifth, a t)^ification of the communion of his Spirit 
 with the believer, especially in the rite of the Eucharist (vss. 29-30) ; and 
 finally, in the heart inflamed, a hint of the endowment of the believer 
 with spiritual power (vs. 32). This outline has almost the appearance 
 of an early Christian missionary sermon;* and this seems its function 
 here — it is the homiletic restatement of the gospel narrative, just such 
 as we might expect from one who had been an evangelizer and co-worker 
 with Paul.^ 
 
 But is it Pauline, or such a statement as might be expected from one 
 of Paul's missionary staff ? It contains, indeed, two elements strongly 
 emphasized by Paul — mystical communion and spiritual endowment — 
 and it closely resembles the address attributed by the same author to 
 Paul in Acts 13:17-41; but certain of the most central of the PauHne 
 doctrines, such as justification through Christ (which is comprehended 
 in the address at Pisidian Antioch), are quite omitted.* Harnack, 
 
 ' Cf. Hawkins in Ox. Stud., pp. 90-94. 
 
 * Cf . Acts 2:22-35; 3'-^3~^5> 18, 21-24; 13:23-41, etc. (But these too are 
 Lukan.) 
 
 ' Cf. Acts 16:13; Col. 4:14; Philem. 24; II Tim. 4:11. 
 
 * This element does, however, appear later in the same chapter (vs. 47). 
 
 123 
 
54 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 however, well points out' that the doctrine of the Pauline Epistles can 
 hardly have been comprehended in all its depth by the Pauline churches, 
 or even by all of Paul's co-workers, and that there is just this difference 
 between the theology of the epistles and that of the Third Gospel and 
 Acts. So it would seem that, in this narrative, the evangelist himself is 
 endeavoring, as he has nowhere else in his Gospel, though probably now 
 on the basis of some brief oral tradition, to press home the application of 
 his story, much as the Fourth Evangelist did in a balder and less literary 
 fashion when he wrote, "These are written that ye may believe that 
 Jesus is the Christ, and that believing ye may have life in his name."^ 
 
 The conclusion will then here be, that, of the Resurrection narratives, 
 the first, that of the Appearance of Jesus upon the Emmaus Road 
 (Luke 24:13-35), may have been largely expanded by the hand of the 
 evangelist; but that the rest (vss. 36-53) are in the main drawn from 
 some definite source, probably J. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 It has now been discovered that an examination of the Passion- 
 narrative of the Third Gospel in detail confirms the conclusion to which 
 a more general survey in the preceding chapter had already led us, 
 namely, that the great mass of the non-Markan materials of the Passion- 
 narrative of Luke, and indeed almost the whole of his record of the Last 
 Supper, the arrest, trial, execution, and Resurrection appearances of 
 Jesus, is derived from a group of materials independent of Mark and 
 possessed of a definite arrangement. To this source-group have been 
 ascribed some 165I verses, as follows:^ Luke ig:28, 37-44; 21:12a, 
 13-15, 18-20, 216-22, 2sb-26a, 28, 34-36, 37-3S; 22:8, 14-^ga, 21, 
 23-24, 25-32, 35-38, jg, 40-41, 42^'-46, 47<^, 47M9, 5^0; 53c, 54a, 
 55-6ofl, 6ia, 62, 6J-63, 66a, 67-68, 70; 23:1-2 (3), 4-16, 18-21, 22b- 
 
 24, 27-33, 35-37, 39-43> 46, 48-490, 50-510 (S^b-ssb), 53^-54, 55-5^; 
 24: (i), 2-ioa, 13-35, 36-53- In addition to these there are a few other 
 verses which possibly, but not with such certainty, belong also to the 
 same group of materials: Luke 19:47-4^; 20:20, 26, 34-36; 22:33, 
 50, 516; 23:25, 47; 24:11, 12. Luke 20:17-18 has been ascribed to 
 a source of a different character. 
 
 ' Luke the Physician, pp. 139-43; Liikas der Arzt, pp. 99-102. 
 
 ^ It must still remain possible, however, that this too was the work of the author 
 of J (although he hardly appears to Pauline in other sections), since the last verses of 
 the section (especially vs. 33) serve as the setting of the succeeding narrative. 
 
 3 In verses designated in italic figures considerable editorial re-working may have 
 taken place as they now stand. 
 
 124 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 55 
 
 There remains to inquire whether this attribution of the materials 
 will explain the larger facts of the diversities between the Lukan and the 
 Markan Passion-narratives. It is at once apparent that it does account 
 for the additional materials in Luke. That the transpositions and other 
 corrections are also thus accounted for has been pointed out in the par- 
 ticular cases in the foregoing treatment of the several passages. The 
 bearing of this discrimination of the materials upon the striking want of 
 agreement between Luke and Mark has also been pointed out in detail; 
 but its bearing in the large may now be summarized. In the approxi- 
 mately 165I verses above ascribed to J there are 2,511 words, of which 
 295, or 1 1 . 75 per cent, are common also to Mark ; while in the remaining 
 103^ verses there are 1,597 words, of which 1,027, or 65 .61 per cent, are 
 shared with the Second Gospel; of these the greater portion, 1,263 words 
 in 85 verses, occur in the earher portion (Luke 19:28 — 22:13) o^ the 
 Passion-narrative, and these agree with Mark in 828 words (66 . 7 per 
 cent), while the remaining portion, 334 words, agree in but 201 words, 
 or 61.3 per cent. This agreement with Mark is indeed closer than that 
 found in earlier portions of the Third Gospel, and it may be objected 
 that an undue proportion of the more remotely paralleled materials have 
 been assigned to J. But it must be observed: (i) that in chapter 20 there 
 is a large proportion of discourse materials, in which the agreement is 
 regularly closer than the average (cf. p. 8), and (2) that in the latter 
 portion of the Passion-narrative the groundwork of the narrative is 
 non-Markan and the Markan materials appear in short interpolations, 
 in which the evangelist would be much more likely to copy the language 
 accurately than in the reproduction of longer paragraphs,' and that the 
 greater amount of agreement (8 per cent additional) is not more than 
 is consistent with this diversity in the employment of the materials. 
 
 It may therefore be concluded that the assignment of a considerable 
 portion of the materials of the Passion-narrative of the Third Gospel, 
 approximately as indicated above, to a non-Markan source does account 
 for the phenomena which have been observed in that narrative. It 
 still remains, however, to inquire whether there are apparent in the style 
 and language, or in the thought of these materials, any particular char- 
 acteristics which will serve further to differentiate them from the Markan 
 source or from the hand of the evangelist himself, or which will furnish 
 any clue as to the original form and nature of this source. This investi- 
 gation must be our next task. 
 
 ' See Dr. Sanday's sane description of the physical conditions of the evangelists' 
 literary work in Ox. Stud., pp. 16-19. 
 
 125 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE J MATERIALS 
 
 I. VOCABULARY 
 
 The materials now assigned to J contain some 164I verses out of 
 the 1,149 verses of the whole Gospel, that is, they are just one-seventh 
 as long as the whole Gospel and just one-sixth as long as the Acts (which 
 has 1,000 verses). The total number of words in these sections is about 
 2,511, and the total vocabulary contains some 601 different words. It 
 is now our task to investigate this vocabulary for evidence bearing on 
 the conclusion we have tentatively reached, that the J materials are 
 drawn from a distinct source. Such evidence may be sought along 
 several lines : either from the proportion of words which appear foreign 
 to the evangelist and are rare in the rest of his work, or from the use 
 in the J materials of words for which the rest of the Gospel seems to 
 prefer a synonym, or from the scarcity of certain expressions which 
 characterize the rest of the evangelist's work. 
 
 I. Of the 582 words in the vocabulary of the J materials, there are 
 214 which are fairly common in the New Testament, and 71 more which 
 are Usted by Hawkins^ as "characteristic of Luke," and there are also 
 64 words (including 18 of Hawkins' "Lukan characteristics") which are 
 common both in J and in the other non-Markan portions of Luke. EUmi- 
 nating these 331 words, we have a remainder of 251 words which demand 
 a closer study. 
 
 The first conclusion to be drawn from such a study is that the vocabu- 
 lary of J is more closely related to that of the non-Markan sections of 
 Luke than to that of the sections derived from the Markan source; 
 for, of the 97 words which appear as frequently in J as in the rest of the 
 Gospel, there are 66 which are found only in non-Markan sections and 
 but 31 which appear at all in the Markan materials. Adding to these 
 66 words the other 64 words \yhich appear only in J and in non-Markan 
 sections, we have a total of 130 words, in J, characteristic of the non- 
 Markan materials, or a little more than one-fifth of the total vocabulary. 
 
 A still larger proportion of the words, however, are more or less 
 characteristic of the J materials. Thus there are 97 words which appear 
 
 ^ J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2d ed., 1909), pp. 16-23. 
 
 56 [126 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 57 
 
 as often in J as in the rest of the Gospel, 114 which, although found else- 
 where in the New Testament, do not occur in the Third Gospel outside 
 of the J materials, and 40 which are hapax legomena^ and do not occur 
 elsewhere in the New Testament. This means that a total of 251 
 words, or 42 . 7 per cent of the vocabulary, are to a considerable degree 
 characteristic of the J materials. 
 
 This figure, however, does not take account of the possible recurrence 
 of some of these words in Acts to such an extent that they must be 
 regarded as belonging rather to the vocabulary of the evangehst than 
 to that of his source. Further sifting is therefore necessary. We may 
 consider, therefore, two classes of words: those peculiarly characteristic 
 of the J materials and those which do not occur elsewhere in the Lukan 
 writings. To the first class will be assigned those words that appear at 
 least twice in the J materials and are not found in either the remainder 
 of Luke or the Acts more frequently than they are used in J. The first 
 characteristic of these words, that they occur at least twice in the J 
 materials, is essential to assure us that the word is truly characteristic 
 and not merely of accidental occurrence; the second, that they appear 
 no oftener in the rest of Luke or in Acts, is sufficient to insure their 
 being pecuharly characteristic of J, since the remainder of the Gospel, 
 and the whole of Acts, is each six times as long as the J materials. Of 
 the words of this class there are 37 (designated with a dagger, f, in 
 the list of Appendix II). Of the words of the second class, those not 
 found in the Lukan writings outside of the J sections, there are 90 
 (designated in the list of Appendix II with a single asterisk, *), including 
 40 words not found elsewhere in the Nev/ Testament. This gives a 
 total of 127 words which may fairly be called characteristic of the source 
 rather than of the evangelist, or a little more than one-fifth of the whole 
 vocabulary. 
 
 In order to estimate more surely the significance of these factors, as 
 well as to furnish a check upon that factor of variety in discourse inherent 
 in the fact that each new subject requires some new words, we may 
 apply a similar investigation to a passage of Markan materials in the im- 
 mediate context of J. For this purpose examine Luke 20:2-16, 27-33, 
 37-47. These passages contain t^t, verses and 460 words. Their total 
 vocabulary contains 159 words, of which 92 are common in the New 
 Testament. As characteristic of these sections there are 36 words which 
 
 ' Hapax legomena might be referred either to the evangelist or to the source ; 
 but since the probability of their repetition grows in direct proportion to the length of 
 the document in which they occur, they are more probably to be referred to the source. 
 
 127 
 
58 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 appear as frequently here as in the rest of Luke, ii more not found 
 elsewhere in the Third Gospel, and also 4 hapax legomena — a total of 
 51 words in all, or one- third of the whole vocabulary. The figure for 
 the similar classes of J, however, is 251, or two-fifths of its whole vocabu- 
 lary. Thus the J materials contain half again as many non-Lukan words 
 as do the test sections of Markan materials examined above, in proportion 
 to their entire vocabulary. Even considering the relative frequency of 
 these characteristic words in the sentence or verse (this can be estimated 
 pretty closely, as few of them occur more than once), a similar conclusion 
 is reached: the J sections contain, in the 2,703 words, 251 characteristic 
 words, or about one in every ten-and-one-half ; while the test sections 
 have 51 characteristic words in a total of 460, or one in every nine— 
 that is, the unusual words are about as frequent in the J sections. 
 
 To these facts, however, must be added a further observation: of 
 the 51 unusual words in the test sections, 39 are seen, by comparison with 
 the parallel sections of Mark, to have been derived by the evangeUst 
 from his source, and but 12 can be attributed to the evangehst him- 
 self. The obvious conclusion from this is that only about 20 per cent of 
 the unusual language, at the most, can be attributed to the editor, and 
 that the rest must be regarded as characteristic of the source materials. 
 
 / if then the J materials contain more words not elsewhere common in 
 
 ^ the Lukan writings than do the test sections of Markan materials, it 
 
 is a safe inference that the evangehst, so far from composing freely, is 
 
 / rather following the language of his source more closely than he followed 
 
 / the Markan document. 
 
 ' This inference is again borne out by comparison of the characteristic 
 
 words of the two groups of material. There are 21 Markan words rare 
 or wanting in the rest of Luke and 3 other words not found elsewhere 
 in Luke or Acts— a total of 24 words, or one-sixth of the whole vocabu- 
 lary—which may be called characteristic of the test sections; but the 
 J sections contain 127 characteristic words, which form a httle more than 
 one-fifth of the total vocabulary. The Lukan language then is again 
 shown to be less prominent in J than in the Markan materials. 
 
 In the following tabulation of the foregoing data, the first column of 
 figures presents the actual number of words from the vocabulary of J 
 which fall into the category indicated; the second column, the proportion 
 of the whole which they constitute; the third presents the actual number 
 of words in the test sections which fall mto the particular class; the 
 fourth, the number of such words paralleled in Mark; the fifth, the 
 proportion of the figure in the third column to the whole number of 
 
 128 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE S PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 59 
 
 words in the vocabulary of the test sections; and the final column states 
 the proportion of the J percentage to that of the test sections. The 
 categories are fully explained in the foregoing discussion. We may then 
 tabulate the data as shown in Table II. 
 
 TABLE II 
 
 
 J Materials 
 
 Test Sections 
 
 
 
 Words 
 
 Per- 
 centage 
 
 Words 
 
 Markan 
 Words 
 
 Per- 
 centage 
 
 Pro- 
 portion 
 
 Total number of words 
 
 2,703 
 582 
 
 214 
 71 
 64 
 
 100. 
 
 36.8 
 12.2 
 II .0 
 
 460 
 159 
 
 92 
 
 
 
 
 Number of different words 
 
 70 
 
 lOO.O 
 
 57-8 
 
 I 00 
 
 Common words 
 
 1.50 
 
 Lukan characteristics 
 
 Characteristics of non-Markan sections . . 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 9.4 
 
 
 Remainder 
 
 251 
 
 64 
 66 
 
 31 
 
 II. 
 
 "•3 
 5-3 
 
 52 
 
 15 
 17 
 19 
 
 
 
 
 Characteristics of non-Markan sections . . 
 J characteristics in non-Markan sections 
 J characteristics in Markan sections .... 
 
 12 
 16 
 
 9-4 
 10.7 
 12.0 
 
 
 Total 
 
 161 
 
 97 
 
 114 
 
 40 
 
 27.6 
 
 16.6 
 
 19.4 
 
 6.7 
 
 51 
 
 36 
 II 
 
 4 
 
 43 
 
 31 
 8 
 
 
 32.0 
 
 22.6 
 6.9 
 
 2.S 
 
 1. 16 
 
 Words rare in rest of Luke 
 
 
 Words not in rest of Luke 
 
 
 Words not in rest of New Testament 
 
 
 Total 
 
 251 
 
 37 
 50 
 40 
 
 42.7 
 
 6-5 
 8.6 
 
 6.7 
 
 SI 
 
 24 
 4 
 4 
 
 39 
 
 21 
 
 3 
 
 
 32.0 
 
 ISO 
 
 2-5 
 2-S 
 
 0.75 
 
 Words most often in present sections . . . 
 Words not in rest of Luke- Acts 
 
 Words not in rest of New Testament. . . . 
 
 
 Total characteristics of sections. . . . 
 
 127 
 
 21.8 
 
 32 
 
 24 
 
 20.0 
 
 0.91 
 
 2. Turning now to the choice of synonyms, it will appear shortly 
 that there are a number of cases where the J materials employ one of a 
 pair or a group of synonyms far more frequently, in proportion, than does 
 the rest of the Gospel or the Acts. It is, of course, true, as Ropes has 
 pointed out,' that the third evangelist quite frequently introduces a 
 synonym for a word just used, for the sake of variety; but a marked 
 preference of J for one of a set of synonyms, where the rest of the Lukan 
 materials prefer another, would seem to be most easily attributed to ^ 
 the underlying source rather than to an editor, and may therefore be 
 
 ^ J. H. Ropes, "An Observation on the Style of St. Luke," in Harvard Studies 
 in Classical Philology, XII (1901), 299-305. 
 
 129 
 
60 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 regarded as additional evidence to confirm our previous conclusions as 
 to the independence of the J materials. Examples of this preference for 
 a different synonym are not wanting.' 
 
 Verbs. — We may examine first the verbs. Of the verbs of striking, 
 TVTTTOJ is rare in J (1:3:5), though listed by Hawkins as characteristic of 
 Luke, as compared with iraLo} (1:0:0), Traraaaoi (2:0:3), ^^^ TatSevco 
 in the sense of "scourge" (2:0:0). Of verbs of fearing, TTokoixai is 
 peculiar to J (2:0:0), while (^o/Seojuat (1:3:5) and rapaaaw (1:1:3) are 
 rare. Of verbs of silence, aiyao), cited by Hawkins as characteristic of 
 Luke, appears only in Luke 20:26 in an editorial passage doubtfully 
 assigned to J, and is rare (1:3:3) in comparison with <nco7rdco (1:1:1). 
 Of verbs of praising, evXoyecj (5:6:2) is preferred to aiueca (1:2:2) or 
 do^a^o) (1:8:5). Of verbs of doing, Trpdcrcrco (4:2:13) is proportionately 
 more frequent than Trotew (5 : 83 : 69). Of verbs of going, epxonai. (5 : 94 : 
 55) and its compounds (14: 132 : 130) are proportionately rare, as against 
 iropevonai (8:43:39) and (xvfjLTopevofjLaL (1:2:0). Of verbs of sitting, 
 KadrjuaL (4:8:7) is preferred to Kadi^oi (1:6:9); and of verbs of reclining, 
 avaKeL/xaL (2:0:0) is preferred to avairlTO} (1:3:0) or KaraKXlvco (1:5:0). 
 Of verbs of concealing, /caXuTrrco and TreptKaXuTrrco (1:1:0 and 1:0:0) 
 seem preferred to kputttco (1:3:0). Verbs of announcing and preaching 
 are all rare; but evayye\i^oiJ,aL (0:10:15) is entirely wanting in J, 
 while d7ra77€XXa) (1:10:16) and Kr)ph(X(TOi (1:8:8) both appear. Of 
 verbs to describe the resurrection, avlar-qpn tK veKpdv (2:1:1) is propor- 
 tionately more frequent than tydpop.ai kK veKpdv (2:5:8). 
 
 Nouns. — Of designations of the inner circle of Jesus' followers, ol 
 nadriTai (2:5:0) is preferred to 01 8u8eKa (evSeKo) (3:6:3) or ol a-KbaToKot 
 (i:7:plurr.). Of designations of transgressors, KaKovpyo^ (3:0:0) is 
 preferred to anapruiKos (i : 16:0) or avofios (1:0:1). Of titles of rulers in 
 the ecclesiastical body tt pea fivr epos (0:3:7) is wanting, but ol ttputol 
 (1:0:3) and ol apxovres (3:5:10) are used. For reference to a grave, 
 
 ' The basis of comparison here will be the proportion between the number of 
 occurrences of one word and those of its sjmonyms, comparing this proportion in J 
 with that for the rest of Luke and Acts. Thus, if a word A is used twice as often in 
 the J materials as its synonym B, and occurs only half as often as B in the other Lukan 
 materials, it will be considered the preferred synonym in J, and B will be considered 
 rare in J. 
 
 The figures in parentheses following each word denote the number of occurrences 
 of the word in J, in the rest of Luke, and in Acts, respectively. Thus (x, y, z) means 
 that the word is used x times in J, y times in the rest of Luke, and z times in Acts. 
 In weighing these proportions it should be recalled that the remainder of Luke, and 
 the book of Acts, are each six times as long as the J source. 
 
 130 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 61 
 
 fjivrifxa (0:3:2) is wanting, but nvijfieiov (5: 2: i) is common. For writing 
 and writings ypa/ina (0:2:2) is wanting, but ypa<l)r} (3:1:1) and to 
 yey panfievov (4:2:2) are frequent, although the finite perfect ytypairTai 
 is rare (1:10:5). For "deed," ipyov (i:i:io) seems rare, compared 
 with Tpa^is (1:0:1), and irpayna (0:1:1) is wanting. God is referred to 
 as Uarrjp somewhat frequently (3:13: 3) as against the more general term 
 Geos (9:82:173), and Kvpios is rare (i:38:plurr.). The noun apxi-^p^vs 
 is wanting in the singular (0:3:11), but frequent in the plural (7:5:11). 
 
 Adjectives. — For "many," kavos (3:7:18) is decidedly preferred 
 to iroXvs (2:42:49). For "all," oXos (1:15:20) is rare, and a-n-as (4:7:10) 
 is frequent, relatively to xas (2i:i33:plurr.). For "other," erepos 
 (4:30:18) is rare compared with dXXos (2:7:5) and Xolttos (2:4:6). 
 For the mention of a name, KoKov/xevos (1:7:9), and especially "Keyonevos 
 (1:0:0), are preferred to the uses of ovofia — ovoixaTL (2:5:22) and w ovofia 
 (1:6:1). For "deserving," amos (3:0:1) is preferred to ci^tos (2:6:7), 
 TLfiios (0:0:2), or 'ivTiixos (0:2:0). Of the two adjectives for "left- 
 hand," J uses apiarepos (1:0:0), while the rest of the New Testament 
 uses evdopvuos (0:0:1, etc.). For indefinite article, els (3:14:3) seems to 
 approach tIs (9:70:118) more closely here than elsewhere. 
 
 Adverbs and particles. — As an adverb of asseveration ovrcos (2:0:0) is 
 preferred to afiriv (i : 5:0) or the phrase kw aKr]deias (1:3:2). Among the 
 prepositional adverbs for "before," kvavrlov (2:1:2) is preferred to 
 efXTrpoadev (3:6:2) and hwinov (3:16:14). 
 
 The evidence of these sets of synonyms is not of equal value through- 
 out. In some cases it is quite striking, in others somewhat doubtful; 
 but the total effect of these instances must be to corroborate the impres- 
 sion that there is a distinct diversity of language between the J materials 
 and the rest of the Lukan writings. 
 
 3. A third Une of evidence is that of words used in the J materials ^ 
 in a different sense from that given them in the rest of Luke and in 
 Acts. As examples may be cited the following words: airo^alvoi in the 
 sense to happen, elsewhere to descend; buarrini, to depart; kXetTrco, to 
 be eclipsed; TratSeuoj, to scourge, elsewhere used of education; crvWafx^avci}, 
 to arrest, elsewhere used of the act of conception ; 0ati'co, to seem, elsewhere 
 meaning to become visible; Trvevfia, of the spirit of a dead person, but 
 not used of demons; and aroixa of the blade of a weapon. 
 
 There is a similar emphasis upon one of several meanings of a word, 
 without the exclusion of the others, in some further cases. For example, 
 (Tcofw is used of physical preservation from peril most largely in J(3 : 2 : 2), 
 and not at all of spiritual salvation, the meaning most common in the 
 
 131 
 
62 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 rest of Luke (o:io:ii). And 'irpo<j>r]Tris rarely refers, as elsewhere in 
 Luke and Acts, to the prophetic man (1:24:30), but more frequently 
 to the Scriptures (3:3:12). 
 / 4. A fourth hne of evidence for the independence of the J materials 
 might be adduced from the rarity of certain words frequent in the rest 
 of the Lukan writings. Conspicuous among these is the adjective ttoXus, 
 which occurs but twice in the J materials, but is found in the rest of Luke 
 42 times, and 46 times in Acts. Other similar words are : the impersonal 
 use of kykv€TO (5:43:-), virkpx'^ (1:15:25), bikpxotiai (0:10:20), ttio-tos 
 (0:4:4), iroprjpos (0:12:8), ayyeKos (1:23:21), djuao-rwXoj (1:16:0), 
 6 KvpLos, of God (1:38: plurr.) and of Jesus (2:14: plurr.) , iroXis (4:42: 43), 
 TrpwjyrtTrjs (4:27:42), xpovos (1:6:17), ^l/vxv (1:12:17), axpts (1:3:17), 
 Im (1:15:6), vvv (3:15:26), and eVepos (4:30:18). 
 
 It is therefore apparent, from the number of words unusual in other 
 portions of the Lukan writings, from the diversity in the choice of 
 synonyms common to all parts of Luke and Acts, from the use of common 
 words in unusual meanings, and from the rarity of some words common 
 in the rest of the Gospel and Acts, that the J materials use a vocabulary 
 considerably different from that of the evangeUst or of his other sources, 
 though approaching more closely to that of the non-Markan sources. 
 This evidence will go far to confirm the conclusion that the third evange- 
 list derived the J materials from an independent source. 
 
 II. LITERARY STYLE 
 
 Individuality of vocabulary, however, no matter how pronounced, 
 cannot be a final test of diversity of origin; for much of the vocabulary 
 is dependent upon the subject-matter treated, and a considerable degree 
 of variety is to be expected of a writer of the literary skill of the third 
 evangelist. A more subtle test is perhaps to be found in the more general 
 features of the style and in particular turns of expression. We turn, 
 now, to the consideration of some of these. 
 
 / I. Characteristic of the J materials, as of no other portion of the 
 Gospel, is the presence of exact details in fixing the scene of an incident, 
 or in otherwise depicting the scene. In general, Luke is wont to use 
 fewer details in his descriptions than does his Markan source,' though 
 he uses to good effect those which he does employ. But in the J materials 
 we come upon a series of definite hints of time and place to which there 
 is no parallel in the earlier portions of the Gospel. Such are: irpos rfi 
 Kara^aaet tov opovs tcov kXaioiv (19:37), ojaei \ldov fioK-qv (22:41), dLaaTaarrjs 
 
 ' Cf. A. Plummer, St. Luke (in International Critical Commentary), pp. xlvi-xlvii. 
 
 132 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 63 
 
 oxrec ibpas /utSs (22:59), f^^TO, ^paxv (22:58), aTrexovaav crraSiov^ e^Kovra 
 (24:13), ap^anevoi olto 'lepovaaXijix (24:47). Other phrases which are 
 more common in the synoptic tradition and in other parts of Luke, such 
 as en avTov XoKovptos (22:47, 60; 24:36), Trapaxpvp-o. (22:60, a Lukan 
 characteristic), aurp rp S^pq. (24:33), serve rather simply to relate the 
 incidents of the narrative, and have not the same degree of objective 
 definiteness. 
 
 A similar definiteness appears also in certain descriptive touches: 
 dels TO, ybvara (22:42), dir6 t^s XyirT/s (22:45), no-dw^vos rrpds to 0cDs 
 (22:56), 6 Kvpios kvk^\epiv Tio Herpcf (22:61), Trept/SaXcov kadrjra \afnrph.v 
 (23:11), kykvovTO <t>l\oL (23:12), ov ovK fju ov8ds oinro) Keifjievos (23:53), 
 TO ixh o-djS/SaTOJ' riavxaaav (23 : 56), KXiPovauv to. Trpocroiira (24: 5), earadrjaav 
 ffKvdpurol (24:18), KeKXiKiP ^8r] t) rjfiepa (24:29), ix6()OS ottov fikpos 
 (24:42). 
 
 Illustrative of the same tendency are the tacked-on particulars 
 already referred to in a previous chapter (see pp. 49, 51). It has already 
 been shown (p. 17) that the evangelist constructs his discourse with 
 considerable skill and habitually avoids the loose appending of descrip- 
 tive details at the close of a paragraph, even when these are found in 
 his Markan source. But in the J materials these tacked-on appendixes, 
 which we cannot ascribe to the evangelist, are not infrequent. The most 
 striking examples are the dating of the entombment of Jesus (23:54) 
 and the list of the women (24:10), but other instances appear: the 
 friction between Pilate and Herod (23:126), the appearance of Jesus' 
 accusers before Herod (23:10), the title on the cross (23:38), the 
 watchers at the crucifixion (23:49), and perhaps the popular interest 
 
 ^^ in Jesus (19:486) and the description of Barabbas (23:19). 
 
 *0 t/^ A second characteristic tendency of the J materials is in the direction 
 of redundancy. Noteworthy is the repetition of similar or nearly sim- 
 ilar phrases. In the Last Supper the phrase "I shall not eat (drink) 
 until the Kingdom of God" (22 : 16, 18) is recorded twice in very similar 
 language, and so also are the warning to pray (22:40, 46), the cross- 
 examination of Jesus (22:67, 7o)» Pilate's offer to scourge and release 
 Jesus (23: 16, 23), the description of Barabbas (23: 19, 25), and the argu- 
 ment from prophecy for the death of the Christ (24: 26, 46), while Pilate's 
 exoneration of Jesus is thrice recorded (23:4, 14, 22). Simple redun- 
 dancy also appears: the condemnation of Jesus is three times stated 
 in 23:24-25, the disbelief of the disciples (24: 11) and Jesus' teaching in 
 the Temple (21:37-38) twice. This, however, may be due to the hand 
 of the evangelist (cf. 5:26; 9:45; 18:34, etc.). 
 
 133 
 
64 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 With this tendency to repetition there may be placed also another 
 formal tendency, that to the grouping of incidents in triads. This 
 appears to some extent in the other Gospels (as in Peter's three denials), 
 but it is more prominent in the J materials than anywhere else. Thus 
 we find, in addition to Peter's three denials (22:55-60), three warnings 
 to Jerusalem (19:41-44; 21:20-21; 23:27-31), three appeals by Pilate 
 in Jesus' behalf (23: 14-16, 20, 22), three mockings of Jesus on the cross 
 (23:35, 36, 39), three classes impressed by his death (23:47, 48, 49), 
 three resurrection-narratives (24:1-10, 13-35, 36-49), and three appear- 
 ances of the risen Jesus (24:15, 34, 36). But that these triads are not 
 due to the evangelist's design seems demonstrated by the fact that but 
 a single visit to the disciples in Gethsemane is recorded by him, where 
 Mark has a triple visit (Luke 22:39-46; cf. Mark 14:32-42). 
 
 ■y A third characteristic of the J materials lies in the ability with which 
 they preserve the individuality of persons introduced as actors and the 
 dramatic verisimilitude of the words put into their mouths. This is 
 most striking in the estimates of Jesus attributed to one or another of 
 the characters. Compare, for example, the conventionally Christian 
 cast of the remark attributed to the centurion by Mark (Mark 15:39) 
 with the moderation, really suitable for a pagan, of the Lulcan version 
 
 . (23:47), although the evangelist adds one of his own favorite phrases, 
 not at all suitable to the Roman, kbbl^a^iv t6v Qtbv. Again, as Jesus 
 is hanging on the cross, the rulers and even the Jewish bandit or zealot 
 address him in irony with the Jewish title of "the Christ, the elect of 
 God" (23:35, 39), but the Roman soldiery use the political term "king 
 of the Jews" (23:37), The charges preferred against Jesus are likewise 
 Jewish in the Sanhedrin (22:66, 70), but political before Pilate (23: 2, 5). 
 This dramatic quality comes out tragically at the close of Jesus' Farewell 
 Discourse (22:38), where the disciples again fail to understand his 
 meaning,^ and produce their two swords. And it appears, too, in the 
 closing chapter of the Gospel, where the two disciples present a purely 
 Jewish conception of the Messiah as their estimate of the significance of 
 Jesus (24:19, 21). 
 
 \J 2. In the matter of syntax and rhetoric, also, some diversities between 
 the usage of J and that of the rest of the Third Gospel may be noted. 
 While the perfect tenses are rather less frequent, both in the finite forms 
 (6:40:-)^ and in the participle (8:62:-), the pluperfect is much more 
 
 'Luke, however, often thus represents them (cf. 9:45; 18:34). 
 ^ As above, the first figure of the proportion gives the number of occurrences in 
 J, the second the number in the rest of Luke, and the third the number in Acts. 
 
 134 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 65 
 
 frequent (3:1:-). A similar reduction of the use of the perfect appears 
 in the case of the periphrastic form of the verb, the participle with forms 
 of etvai: this periphrasis is slightly more frequent in J than in the rest 
 of the Lukan writings (13:45:40) proportionately, but the use of the 
 perfect participle in periphrastic construction is proportionately rare 
 (4:18:19), and here only is it extended to the use of the aorist parti- 
 ciple (Luke 23 : 19)/ The optative mood is comparatively rare (1:12:-). 
 The verb yivofiat, while common in J (29: loi :-), is rare in the impersonal 
 use of kyeptTo (5:41:-), though fairly common in chapter 24, constitut- 
 ing there four of the nine occurrences of the word. The infinitive of 
 purpose is rare (6:53:-). 
 
 ^ The use of the dative of agent of pronouns with passive verbs is 
 somewhat frequent, proportionately (2:2:4, in Luke 23:15; 24:35; 
 10:17, 20; Acts 5:9; 13:42; 23:21; 27:25), unless the datives be 
 so construed with the passive of opao) in the meaning "to appear" 
 (cf . Luke 1 : 1 1 ; Acts 1:3; 2:3; 7:26,30,35; 9:17; 26:16 6w) and in 
 the phrase tovto v/juv yvucrov laro) (Acts 2:14; 4:10; 13:38; 28:28). 
 The Hebraic use of a cognate noun of the similar stem or similar 
 meaning, to emphasize the idea of the verb (e.g., kircdvuia iTedvinjcra, 
 <^wj/g fieyaXTn eKpa^ev), seems to be slightly more common in J (4:8:-; cf. 
 19:37; 22:15; 23:23, 46; 1:42; 2:8, 9; 4:34; 7:29; 8:28; 11:46; 
 17:16). Also, expressions for ''past," "present," and "future" (ra 
 yevofiiva, to. neWovra, to kcxofxevov, to. avu^e^rjKora, etc.) are especially 
 common in J (6:6:5; cf, Luke 21:36; 22:49; 23:47, 48; 24:14, 18; 
 2:15; 8:34,35,56; 9:7; 13:9; Acts 3:10; 4:21; 5:7: 12:9; 13:12). 
 
 y Noteworthy is an extended use of the article in a number of relations. 
 The genitive rod with the infinitive is slightly more common (7: 19: 24; 
 cf. Moulton and Geden, Concordance, pp. 670-80), and particularly 
 with the infinitive of purpose (4:7:-), although without the article the 
 infinitive of purpose is very rare (2:46:-). Similarly, the article used 
 to introduce a clause is found chiefly in the J sections, with an indirect 
 question (3:4:-; cf. Luke 19:48; 22:23, 24; 1:62; 9:46; 22:1, 4), 
 or even with a direct quotation (Luke 22:37 only). It is similarly em- 
 ployed with an adverbial phrase — to Kad' rifxkpau — once in J (Luke 
 19:47) and once in an earlier passage of Luke (11:3). 
 
 In the uses of prepositions the following may be noted : awo 
 
 with the genitive of cause is proportionately common (3:9:-; in Luke 
 
 21:26; 22:45; 24:41; 6:18; 7:35; 8:29, 43; 9:22; 12:4; 17:25; 
 
 18:3; 19:3). 6td with the genitive is rare (2:12:54; in J only in 
 
 ' Cf. W. H. Simcox, Language of the New Testament, pp. 131-34. 
 
 135 
 
66 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 Luke 22:22; 24: 53). The partitive use of e/c is common (4 times, in Luke 
 22:23, 50; 24:13, 22), although rare in the rest of Luke except in the 
 Great Interpolation (12 times in P, 3 in the remainder of Luke). The 
 use of km with the dative is rare (3:30:25). irpbs with the dative is 
 used by Luke only in J (Luke 19:37). For the notion of agency, &t6 
 is to some extent replaced by iiiro; in the rest of Luke the former quite 
 largely predominates {airo 39 times, vt6 21 times), but in J their occur- 
 rences are the same in number (diro in Luke 21:26; 22:45; 24:41; 
 VTTo in Luke 21:20, 24; 23:8), but both expressions are comparatively 
 rare (6:60:-). The use of ecos with a phrase already introduced by a 
 preposition is peculiar to J (Luke 24:50), and its use with a clause is 
 shared by J (in Luke 22: 16, 18; 24:49) with the Great Interpolation only 
 (6 occurrences in P). The particle el used to introduce a wish is more 
 frequent in the J materials (2:1:0; in Luke 19:42; 22:42; 12:49), 
 and as an interrogative particle it is comparatively more frequent than 
 outside of J (3 : 2 : 6 ; in Luke 22:49, 67; 23:37; 6:9; 13:23; Acts 1:6; 
 4:19; 7:1; 19:2; 21:37; 22:25). 
 
 These diversities of rhetorical usage between J and the hand of the 
 evangelist himself and his sources are not all of them of large significance 
 taken singly, but their collective import is considerable, and they serve to 
 bear out the former conclusion as to the independence of the J materials. 
 
 3. Thus the data of style and language have so far tended to con- 
 firm the hypothesis that the J materials of the Third Gospel were derived 
 from a non-Markan source. Stanton, however, on the basis of an exami- 
 nation of the frequency of "Lukan characteristics" in Markan passages,' 
 concludes that four sections of our J materials — Luke 19:41-44; 23: 
 5-12, 14-15 ; 23 : 39-43 ; and chapter 24 — are from the pen of the evange- 
 list composing freely, perhaps on the basis of oral tradition, but not 
 drawn from any documentary source. But these sections, if compared 
 together, do not make an altogether unified impression, as they should 
 do if all were the product of the same hand. In the Lament of Jesus 
 over Jerusalem, for instance, and the narrative of his appearance to 
 Cleopas and his companion, the Semitic coloring of the style is strong 
 (see p. 68); but in the dialogue with the penitent thief it is almost 
 entirely lacking. And further study of the data presented by Stanton 
 himself leads to the impression that the proofs offered are too subjective 
 and fail to substantiate the conclusions. Thus, while Stanton repudiates, 
 and rightly repudiates, any mere numerical eniuneration of the occur- 
 rences of a selected list of "Lukan characteristics," there is yet a certain 
 
 ' V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, II, 276-322. 
 
 136 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 67 
 
 degree of weight to be given to the numerical argument. And this weight 
 by no means falls exclusively upon the side of the Lukan composition 
 of the sections above named. 
 
 The facts are as follows: In the six Markan sections (Luke 4:31-44; 
 5:12-16, 17-26; 8:22-25, 26-39, 4o~56), containing 63 verses in all, 
 Stanton notes 107 Lukan characteristics, an average of 1.70 per verse. 
 In some of these sections the average is far higher: 10 characteristics 
 for the 5 verses of Luke 5 : 12-16, or 2 per verse; and 13 for the 4 verses 
 of Luke 8:22-25, or 3.25 per verse. But of the four sections above 
 which he denominates Lukan, the 4 verses of 19:41-44 contain but 
 5 Lukan characteristics, an average of 1.25 per verse; and chapter 24, 
 exclusive of the Emmaus narrative, contains 29 verses and but 25 char- 
 acteristics, or 0.86 per verse. The remaining section of the chapter 
 contains in 23 verses 42 Lukan characteristics, or 1.83 per verse, a 
 figure only slightly above the average. The two remaining sections 
 contain a larger proportion of Lukan characteristics (2 per verse in the 
 trial before Herod, and 2 . 2 per verse in the dialogue with the penitent 
 thief), but even so, these figures are not remarkably above the average, 
 nor as large as in at least one of the Markan sections examined.^ 
 
 Certainly then Stanton's conclusions must await confirmation from 
 other evidence, and cannot be made to ofifset the evidence which has been 
 adduced in our previous investigation pointing to the use of a documen- 
 tary source. Even were the proportion of Lukan characteristics far 
 more significant, there would yet remain two possibilities aside from the 
 use of the oral tradition, either the employment of an Aramaic docu- 
 ment which the evangeUst was himself translating, or the use of a docu- 
 ment whose style more nearly resembled the evangelist's own. It is 
 therefore evident that the proportion or the predominance of Lukan 
 characteristics can have, as evidence, but corroborative value. 
 
 4. Beside the problem of the editorial coloring of the narrative there 
 must be placed also the question of the Semitic tone of the language. On 
 this point, Torrey^ has shown that the Greek of the Third Gospel 
 is not by any means the spoken vernacular of the first century, but 
 bears all the marks of being a pure translation-idiom, the product of 
 an attempt to carry over into an alien tongue the genius and idiom of 
 a Semitic speech, whether Aramaic or Hebrew. In addition he has 
 
 'Moreover, at least two other sections of J — Luke 23:44-49; 23:50-54 — have 
 a proportion of two characteristics to each verse of J materials. 
 
 ' C. C. Torrey, "The Translations Made from the Original Aranaaic Gospels," 
 in Studies in the History of Religions, Presented to C. H. Toy, pp. 270-317. 
 
 137 
 
68 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 demonstrated of the first two chapters, by their preponderance of 
 Semitic idiom, together with their large proportion of "Lukan character- 
 istics, " that they must have been translated from a Hebrew source by 
 the third evangelist ; and for the rest of the Gospel he seeks to prove a 
 similar process. We must therefore inquire what is the extent and the 
 significance of the Semitic idiom in the materials of the Third Gospel now 
 under discussion. 
 
 As the basis of this examination we cannot do better than to make 
 use of the list of " Aramaisms" set forth by WelUiausen,' checking up the 
 frequency of their occurrence in the J materials and comparing it with 
 that in materials clearly derived from Mark, and that in the infancy 
 narratives, equally clearly derived from a Semitic original. Such an 
 investigation reveals two things: first, that the Semitic coloring of the 
 J materials is strongest in the discourse sections, ranging from 2\ 
 occurrences per verse in the Farewell Discourse, and 2I in the Apoca- 
 lyptic Discourse, to 2§ per verse in the brief discourse sections Luke 
 19:41-44 and Luke 23: 27-31; and second, that in the remainder of the 
 J materials it is seldom much stronger than in contiguous sections of 
 Markan materials. Exceptions to this latter statement are the sections 
 Luke 22:39-53 (the agony, and the arrest of Jesus) and 24:13-35 (the 
 Emmaus appearance), where the verses assigned to J contain respectively 
 2^ and 2| Semitisms per verse. The remaining materials of J, how- 
 ever, contain, in 99 verses, 153 Aramaisms, or 1.55 per verse. This 
 figure is very close to that for the Markan materials of chapter 20, 
 where there are 61 Aramaisms in 42 verses, or 1.45 per verse; but it 
 is considerably less than the proportion for the infancy narratives, which 
 is 2.52 per verse. However, since the materials of Luke 20 are largely 
 discourse, it may be inferred that the J materials are rather more strongly 
 Semitic in tone than are the Markan materials of corresponding character. 
 In the editorial sections, however, the proportion of Aramaisms is very 
 small, only 0.90 per verse. Table III gives the figures derived from the 
 foregoing data. 
 
 The significance of this Semitic coloring it is diflScult to estimate 
 truly. On the one hand, the third evangelist presents himself, in the 
 preface to his Gospel and in the latter portion of the Acts, as one who can 
 write fluent and idiomatic Greek. So too in the introductory and con- 
 cluding verses of the successive sections of the Passion-narrative (Luke 
 19:47-48; 20:1, 9, 19-20, 26-27, 39-40, 45; 21:1, 5, 37-38; 22:1-7, 
 14, 23, 39, 54, 66; 23:1, 24-25), where, it maybe supposed, the editorial 
 
 ■ J. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, pp. 15-25. 
 
 138 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE S PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 69 
 
 hand is most likely to appear, the proportion of Semitisms is low, but 
 30 in 31 verses, or nearly i per verse. This suggests that the evange- 
 list can hardly be responsible for the Semitic coloring of the language; 
 but Plummer has pointed out' that in some similar sections in the Markan 
 materials of Luke the Lukan version has a more strongly Semitic tone 
 than the corresponding Markan language. This is due, however, to 
 the recurrence of one or two lections {kyhero, Kal l8ov, avros in the 
 nominative) which the evangelist has carried over from other sources 
 or from his Greek Bible and has made his own; in general we cannot 
 
 TABLE III 
 
 Number 
 of Verses 
 
 Number 
 of Aramaisms 
 
 Proportion 
 per Verse 
 
 Editorial sections of Passion-narrative 
 
 Infancy narratives 
 
 Markan narratives (in Luke 20) 
 
 Discourses 19:41-44; 23: 27-31 
 
 Apocalyptic Discourse (J verses) 
 
 Farewell Discourse 
 
 Emmaus narrative 
 
 The agony and arrest narrative 
 
 Remainder of J materials 
 
 21 
 
 128 
 
 42 
 
 9 
 17 
 13 
 23 
 
 9- 
 99 
 
 19 
 
 323 
 
 61 
 
 24 
 38 
 28 
 
 55 
 21 
 
 153 
 
 0.90 
 2.52 
 
 1 45 
 2.66 
 2.23 
 
 215 
 
 2 39 
 2.21 
 
 i-SS 
 
 attribute more than a minimum of Semitisms to the third evangeHst or 
 to the vernacular Greek, which was his native tongue. If this be true, 
 the fact that the J materials appear to have a stronger Semitic coloring 
 than the Markan, although not so strong as that of the infancy narra- 
 tives, would suggest that here the third evangeHst is employing materials 
 which originated in a Semitic miheu, but very likely lay before him in a 
 Greek translation. 
 
 5. In conclusion we must place a definite estimate upon the data 
 presented in the preceding pages. As a first consideration it must be 
 remarked that considerations of style are too varied, as a general rule, 
 to be reduced to system and brought into evidence to prove hterary 
 unity or composition. So Bacon argues, in a critique of Torrey's investi- 
 gations into the sources of Acts,^ that the editorial methods of the ancient 
 writer were such that it is impossible to argue from homogeneity of 
 style to homogeneity of source. This contention has much of truth; 
 but it does not, and cannot, carry with it the converse proposition that a 
 
 ' A. Plummer, Si. Luke, pp. xlix-1. 
 
 ' B. W. Bacon, "More Philological Criticism of Acts," American Journal of The- 
 ology, XXII (1918), 17. 
 
 139 
 
70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 marked diversity of style, especially if it lie deeper than the language of 
 the redactor, does not furnish evidence at least corroborative of the theory 
 of diversity of source. True it is also, as Ropes has pointed out {loc. 
 cii.), that, with true literary instinct, the third evangelist has frequently 
 introduced considerable variety of expression into his sources; but when 
 such variety is found to coincide largely with other indications of diver- 
 sity of source, it must be attributed rather to this latter factor than to 
 the hand of the editor. 
 
 Therefore, since there appears evidence of peculiarities of vocabulary, 
 of individualities of style, of stronger Aramaic coloring, to support our 
 previous hypothesis of the independence of the J materials, and since 
 the proportion of Lukan characteristics is not significantly greater than 
 in other passages where the evangelist was quite certainly following a 
 source, it may safely be asserted that the evidence of the literary form 
 of the J materials also favors our previous deduction that they are 
 derived from a distinct non-Markan source. 
 
 III. THOUGHT AND VIEWPOINT 
 
 In general the J materials accord well with the viewpoint and the- 
 ology of the Synoptic Gospels as a whole; but in details there are enough 
 slight variations from the thought of the rest of the Lukan writings to 
 be significant, and a brief study of the whole thought of the J materials 
 may not be amiss. 
 
 I. World-view. — In general the J materials share the dualistic world- 
 view of the rest of the synoptic literature; but this theoretical dualism 
 is largely offset by a practical common-sense view of worldly events that 
 approximates monism. God is not prominent in the materials. He is 
 looked upon as the source of blessings and so is thanked (19:37; 23: 
 47; 24:53), and in particular is regarded as the ultimate source of the 
 messianic deliverance of Israel (22:70; 23:35), and he is also regarded 
 as righteous and as judge of the righteousness of men (23:40; 24:19). 
 Angels are represented as messengers of Christ to men (24: 23; cf. 24:4), 
 and, in a passage not certainly belonging to J (20:36), as enjoying bUss 
 in heaven. 
 
 The world is under the dominion of the powers of evil, more or less 
 fully (22:53), but Satan, the tempter and persecutor of the righteous 
 (22 : 31), is subject to God's behest as in the early chapters of Job. There 
 is no mention of demons as active in the world. 
 
 God's power in the world has been manifest through Jesus in miracles 
 (23 : 8; 22:51); but the Holy Spirit is not named, and the only possible 
 
 140 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 71 
 
 reference to it is vague (24:49) and depends upon other portions of the 
 Third Gospel for its interpretation. 
 
 2. Christology. — In accord with the practical world- view of the ma- 
 terials, the emphasis, in describing the person of Jesus, is placed upon his 
 humanity. This is the assumption involved in all the details of the story 
 of his arrest, torture, and death, and more explicitly stated in his appear- 
 ance in the form of the Servant (22 : 27, 37), in the defeat of his desire to 
 eat the Passover (22:15), ^^d in the omission of his agonized expectation 
 of arrest related by the other synoptists (cf, 22:39). The title Son of 
 Man is rare (21:36; 22:48; 24:7). Of Jesus' divine origin there is 
 Httle reflection; he occasionally refers to God in the words "my Father" 
 (22:29; 23:46; 24:49), but he refuses to claim a peculiar divine son- 
 ship (22 : 70, a verse which the evangeUst does convert into a claim by the 
 sentence which foUows, see p. 45). His divine destiny is hardly more in 
 view; he suffers to attain "glory" (24:26, probably a reference to his 
 appointment as apocalyptic Messiah) and to obtain the power of for- 
 giving sins (24:47), and he will be the Judge and King in the new age 
 (21:36; 22:29). 
 
 Of divine function upon earth there are the slightest traces: upon 
 the cross he proleptically assumes the function of judgment (23:43), 
 and previously he appears as a mediator of divine gifts to men (22:29). 
 The mission of Jesus is represented chiefly as one of teaching and of 
 announcing the Kingdom (19:47; 21:37; 23:5; 24:19); it is this that 
 lies behind the taunt of his tormentors, "Prophesy!" (22:64) ^^^ it is 
 the failure to act upon his warning and thus escape the dominion of 
 Satan that calls forth his prophecies of disaster to Jerusalem, who "knew 
 not the time of her visitation" (19:42-44) and could reject his appeal "in 
 the green wood" (23:31). These two latter passages incline toward 
 a mission of saving men from the power of Satan, such as Mark expressed 
 in his picture of Jesus as a miracle- worker; but there is little further 
 emphasis upon this side, save in the address to the penitent thief (23:43). 
 
 Jesus' function is principally regarded as being that of a future 
 Messiah, who is to come apocalyptically from heaven to establish the 
 Kingdom. The presentation of this view is one of the main interests of 
 the J source. It is set forth explicitly in the resurrection-narratives 
 (24:25-27, 44-46), and implied in the promise of thrones to the Twelve 
 (22:30) and of a place at the court of the Son of Man (21:36). It 
 seems implied, also, in the idea of his exaltation to heaven (23:42-43; 
 24:26), which would be a necessary step in raising a human being to 
 such an office. It is involved, again, in a decided polemic against the 
 
 141 
 
72 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 idea of a national Messiah as a warring hero, which is definitely rejected 
 (24:21); the messianic function, with a revolutionary interpretation, 
 is attributed to him by his enemies ; but it is shown by the testimony of 
 Roman procurator and centurion, of Jewish prince and bandit, to be 
 fooUsh and mistaken (22:66; 23:2,4,5,14,22,35,37,39). One passage 
 only swerves from this viewpoint, that of the acclamation of Jesus as Son 
 of David and his acceptance of the title (19:37-40) ; but this is probably 
 a historical account which the author has adopted simply to prove his 
 more general point that Jesus is the Messiah, without thought of the type 
 of messianic function it suggests, and its significance must be taken 
 proleptically (cf. 24:26, 44, 46); for the establishment of the Kingdom 
 is still future (22:29; 23:42-43). The Pauline title 6 Kvpios, not infre- 
 quently employed by Luke also, is rare in the J materials (22:61; 24: 34), 
 and only in verses quite possibly editorial in their present form. 
 
 The death and resurrection of Jesus are the central interest and 
 raison d'etre of the J source; but the significance attached to his death is 
 not large. It is represented as necessary, according to prophecy (22:37; 
 24:7, 26-27, 32, 46), apparently as a step in the installation of Jesus as 
 the apocalyptic Messiah (which recalls the Pauline expression of Phil. 
 2:9); but the only hint of the Atonement is the phrase "remission of 
 sins in his name" (24:47). The conception of the resurrection-body of 
 Jesus is strongly literahstic; its physical objectivity is strongly insisted 
 upon, by the story of the empty tomb (24:3, 23, 24), by the explicit 
 assertion that he was not a ghost (24:39, 42), by the proof that he could 
 eat food (24:41-43), and by the use of various purely physical descrip- 
 tions of his activities (24:15-16, 30, 52). At the same time this body 
 would seem to have been of a rarified substance; for he could vanish or 
 appear at will (24: 31, 34-36) and could be in two widely separated places 
 at just about the same time (24:31, 34). The tradition of the resur- 
 rection on the third day is followed in the main (24: 7, 21, 46), but there 
 are indications also of the notion of an immediate, if not a spiritual, 
 resurrection (23:43; 24:26). 
 
 3. Eschatology. — The eschatology of the J sections is restrained and 
 mild. There is, of course, the hope of the Kingdom ; but there is httle 
 reflection of a final world-conflict between God and Satan; rather is 
 Satan working in restive submission to the rule of God already (22:31). 
 The estabhshment of the Kingdom is sometimes represented as imminent; 
 it is to come with the arrest of Jesus before his next meal (22:18), or 
 at the latest before the next Passover (22:16; cf. 23:42-43), and the 
 trials of its citizens are practically at an end (22:29). Of disasters pos- 
 
 142 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 73 
 
 terior to the time of Jesus there are also indications, however: the per- 
 secution of the early church is predicted in no uncertain terms (21 : 12-19; 
 22 :36) ; but their survival unharmed is also indicated (21 : 18-19; 22 :38), 
 and apparently their deliverance is thought of as supernatural (21:28). 
 More interesting to the author is the idea of the punishment of Judaism 
 by the fall of its capital (19:41-44; 21:20-24; 23:28-31, 48), which 
 plays an especially prominent part. The part to be played by Jesus 
 in the future age is vague; he is to be the ruler of the new Kingdom 
 (19:38; 21:36; 22:29-30; 23:42-43), but his part in its establish- 
 ment is not described. The polemic against a national revolutionary 
 idea of the Messiah involves a corresponding rejection of the purely ma- 
 terial idea of the new Kingdom. 
 
 4. Salvation. — The word xap^s does not appear in the J sections; 
 its place in the Pauline theology is here partly taken, however, by the 
 concept of salvation by the power of Jesus or of his name (24:47), which 
 is prefigured in Jesus' prayer for Peter (22:32) and pardon of the thief 
 (23:43). Salvation from physical ills is included in the same exercise 
 of power (21:15, 28). The Pauline words iriarLs and TiaTevu are almost 
 equally rare and are not used in a clearly ethical sense, though such might 
 be read into them in the case of Peter (22:32) and of the disciples after 
 the crucifixion (24:25). Faith, in the sense of a personal dependence 
 upon Jesus, may also be exemplified in the penitent thief (23:42). In 
 24:47 the necessity of repentance is impUed. There is no mention of any 
 sacramental means of salvation. 
 
 The ethical side of salvation receives more emphasis. There is 
 frequent warning against temptation (21:34; 22:31, 40, 46), approval 
 of prayer, by admonition and by the example of Jesus (21:36; 22:32, 
 40, 41, 46), and a like approval of praise (19:37-40; 24:53). Love, in 
 its practical expression, is enjoined (22:25-27). But of the "asceti- 
 cism" of Luke the only echoes are the depiction of the heavenly state 
 as without marriage (20: 35) and the warning against debauchery (21 : 34). 
 
 In the discussion of marriage in the new age it is hinted that the 
 future state of men will be divinity, since they by resurrection come to 
 share the incorruptible essence of God (20:36), but this passage is not 
 certainly a part of the J materials. 
 
 5. Society. — The relation of Christianity to Judaism is represented as 
 close and the standpoint is even particularistic. The gentile kings are 
 mentioned as horrible examples (22:25-26), and the only citizens of the 
 Kingdom thought of are the twelve tribes of Israel (22:30). The Law 
 and the Temple are approved: the Law is observed by the women 
 
 143 
 
74 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 (22:56), and Jesus is quoted as desiring to keep the Passover (22:15), 
 while the Temple is the scene of his activities and of his disciples' (19 : 47 ; 
 21:37; 24:53). The Jewish people are regarded in a friendly light 
 as favorable to Jesus (19:37, 48; 21:38; 23:27, 35, 48; 24:18; cf. 
 20:19; 22:6), and there is a notion that his ministry among them in 
 Jerusalem continued for some Uttle time (19:47) to nad' -nixepav; 21:37, 
 tAs wepas; 22:39, Kara to Wos; 22:53, Kad' rjnepap; but this idea is 
 carried over into the editorial sections, 20:1; 22:1, 2, 7). The Jewish 
 rulers, however, are regarded as enemies and represented as hostile to 
 Jesus (19:47; 23:2, 5, 10, 13, 25, 35; 24:20).' These are always the 
 "high priests," and the earUer antagonists, the Pharisees, appear only 
 at the triumphal entry (19:39). Of the " universalism " of Luke there 
 is httle — the command to preach to all nations (24:47, but perhaps edito- 
 rial) and the admission of the outcast thief to the Kingdom (23:43). 
 
 The disciples are presented, as by the rest of the Third Gospel, 
 in a favorable light. Their enthusiastic outburst is defended (19 : 39-40) 
 and they are promised a position at the court of the Son of Man (21 : 36). 
 There is a considerable interest in the larger body of disciples (19:37-40; 
 24:10, ss); but the Twelve are exalted. Their actual prominence is 
 recognized in the warning not to abuse their position (22: 26), and they 
 are promised a position of high authority (22:28-30). Peter receives 
 especial authority as the foundation of the church (22:32) and the first 
 to see the risen Lord (24:34), and the interest in him appears elsewhere 
 in especial connections of him with Jesus' career (22:8, 55-62). The 
 Lukan "desire to spare the disciples" appears in the excuse made for 
 their failure to watch (22:45). 
 
 6. Divergences from the viewpoint of Luke. — In the foregoing viewpoint 
 a few divergences from the thought general in the Third Gospel may be 
 noticed. Chief of these are the eschatology and the Lukan universal- 
 ism. In the case of the latter, the evangelist's broad interest, which 
 includes the Gentiles, gives way to Jewish particularism; Jews and Jews 
 only, save for the figure of Pilate, are concerned in the narrative, and 
 the only members of the Kingdom mentioned are the Twelve Tribes. 
 At the very conclusion of the Gospel, it is true, the commission to preach 
 to all nations is given; but this, the only point at which the final narra- 
 tives parallel the other synoptics, is just the point which the evangelist 
 must have added from his general knowledge of the Christian movement 
 
 ' This notion, however, appears in the editorial sections of Luke's Passion- 
 narrative (20:1, 19, 20, 26; 22:2, 5, 52, 66) and in the Markan version as well. It 
 cannot, therefore, be supposed peculiar to J. 
 
 144 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 75 
 
 if it did not stand in his source, and the omission of the similar phrase in 
 the Apocalyptic Discourse (cf. Mark 13: lo; Matt. 24: 14) is significant. 
 We may therefore conclude that, as against the Hellenistic universalism 
 of the evangelist, the source was particularistic. 
 
 The eschatological interest of the J materials is rather in the afflictions 
 of the disciples and in the destruction of Jerusalem than in the final 
 world-calamity, of which it gives but the merest impUcations. The 
 rest of the Third Gospel, however, contains no such specific descriptions 
 of the fall of Jerusalem (cf. 13:34-35), and its eschatological interest 
 is in the coming of the apocalyptic Messiah (17:22-37; 12:41-46; 
 21:27; 22:69) ^^'^ of the final catastrophe (12:54-56; 21:29-32, etc). 
 
 Other lesser diversities also appear, of greater or less significance. 
 One of these is the very minor attention paid to Satan and to demons and 
 spirits, which figure quite largely in other portions of the Gospel. In 
 the Christology the Lukan title 6 Kvpios and the representation of Jesus 
 as a wonder-worker are reduced to a place of minor significance. Against 
 the Lukan representation of the resurrection as occurring on the "third 
 day" (9:22; 18:33),^ there is also the idea that Jesus passed immediately 
 into glory (23:43; 24: 26), and that his next meal should be in the King- 
 dom (22:16, 18), which may be the original notion of the J source. 
 Again, there is practically no reflection of the "asceticism" or "Ebion- 
 ism" of Luke, and small reference to "grace" or to "faith." "Temp- 
 tation," however, is somewhat prominent, as in the Galilean document 
 (4:1-13; 6:47-49; 7:23; cf. 8:13), and the J materials share with G 
 the exaltation of Peter also (22:31-32; 5:1-11). 
 
 Thus, while the viewpoint is in general the same as that of the rest 
 of the Gospel, there are some features of the thought of the J material, 
 as of its language and style, which show its independence of the mind of 
 the evangelist, even while he has impressed himself upon it to some 
 extent. These facts are sufficient to confirm entirely our earlier con- 
 clusion that the J materials constituted an independent source, which 
 the third evangelist wove into his narrative of the close of Jesus' career. 
 
 IV. THE NARRATIVES OF LUKE 19:1-27 
 
 A word must be added regarding the first part of the nineteenth 
 chapter, of which it at first seemed that we must take account in our 
 description of J. These two sections have already been set aside from 
 
 'This representation appears also in the J narratives (24:7, 21, 46); but at 
 least one of these verses (24:21) is so awkwardly introduced as to appear an inter- 
 polation, and a second (24:46) occurs in an important summary of the mission of the 
 early disciples and might well be editorial, therefore. 
 
 145 
 
76 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 J (see p. ^T,) on the ground of their thought, the idea of repentance in 
 the former and the paraboUc form of teaching in the latter being more 
 closely akin to the Perean source than to J. A few points of style and 
 language may be noted which serve to confirm this impression: afiapruiXos 
 (19:7) is frequent in P (6 times) and found but once in J; Siayoyyv^eiv 
 (19:7) occurs elsewhere in Luke only in P (15:2); dovKos (vss. 13, 
 15, 17, 22) is frequent in P (14 times) but rare in other parts of Luke 
 (S times, and 3 times in Acts) ; to aToKcSKos (vs. 10) is found only in P 
 (4 times); kiravepxcixai (vs. 15) occurs only in 10:35; eXdxtcTos (vs. 17) 
 in 12: 26 and 16:10; depi^u (vss. 21, 22) in 12:24; iroXir?7s (19:14) in 15:15 
 and once in Acts; irpeo-jSeta (vs. 14) in 14:32; tA virapxovra in the sense 
 "property" (vs. 8) occurs 6 times in P, once in G, and once in Acts; 
 vTTodkxoiJ-a-f' (vs. 6) once in P and once in Acts; and (jxaveoj in the sense 
 of "simimon" (vs. 15) twice in P and 3 times in Acts. The phrase 
 vlos (or dvyar-qp) 'A/Spadju (vs. 9) is also characteristic of P (13:16; cf. 
 16:22-24). 
 
 This evidence seems sufficient to establish the fact that the relation- 
 ships of Luke 19:1-27 are rather with the Perean than with the Jeru- 
 salem source. 
 
 146 
 
CHAPTER V 
 THE LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE JERUSALEM SOURCE 
 
 I. UNITY 
 
 The demonstration of the literary unity of any writing against all 
 possible criticisms and objections is, in general, a difl&cult, if not an 
 impossible, task; for few are the works that possess either a mathematical 
 interior interdependence or a superficial stamp of homogeneity. In 
 most works it is possible to distinguish different subjects and to demon- 
 strate that with diversity of subject there goes also a diversity of treat- 
 ment, for literature is a living thing and can hardly be reduced to rote. 
 A mechanical demonstration of literary unity, therefore, must nearly 
 always fail, and to establish the unity of a document it must be suffi- 
 cient to show that there are few valid arguments against that unity. 
 
 We may discuss two problems as regards the unity of J: first, whether 
 the materials separate themselves into a number of disparate blocks; 
 and, second, whether any of the details which have been ascribed to the 
 J source are not, in fact, a part of it. 
 
 I. It is first necessary to inquire whether the material falls, by 
 subject-matter, or from other indications, into blocks, and if so, what 
 significance is to be attached to these. Upon examination we find the 
 following distinct groupings of material: an Apocalyptic Discourse, 
 a narrative of Jesus' entry into the city with attached sayings, a narra- 
 tive of the Last Supper, a Farewell Discourse, a narrative of Jesus' 
 arrest, trial, and death, a narrative of the burial of Jesus (strangely 
 fragmentary in our remaining J materials), to which may be coupled the 
 narrative of the empty tomb, and narratives of the appearance of the 
 risen Jesus. Does this grouping imply a diversity of sources ? 
 X/ It must first be observed that the groups mentioned are not more 
 distinct than the changes of subject require: there are no marked breaks 
 (though the Apocalyptic Discourse and the resurrection appearances 
 are not closely connected with the rest), nor are there disagreements 
 between the groups nor overlapping nor duplication in the narratives. 
 The few disagreements observed in the preceding chapter (pp. 72 f., 74) 
 are not radical, and seem to bear equally against the interior unity of 
 these groups. If then there are no disagreements or breaks between the 
 blocks, but they can be made to form a smooth narrative, it is simpler 
 
 147] 77 
 
 ^ 
 
78 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 to suppose that they came from a single source, in accord with the famil- 
 iar canon of economy of hypotheses, than to needlessly multiply docu- 
 ments for whose distinct existence there is no evidence. 
 ./ In the second place the transpositions and corrections of the Markan 
 order, as it has already been argued (pp. 27-28), involve the conclusion 
 that the materials affected by each correction should have stood in a 
 continuous narrative. These transpositions, therefore, serve to link 
 up several pairs of narratives, and even some of the larger groups. 
 The location of the Strife of the Disciples (22:24-27) in its present 
 position serves to show that the narrative of the Last Supper and the 
 Farewell Discourse bore some relation to one another in the source. 
 The fixing of the departure from the upper room after the warning 
 to Peter seems also to connect the Farewell Discourse with the 
 narrative of Jesus' arrest and death. Within the latter group there 
 are a number of transpositions which serve largely to connect its 
 members (see p. 24). 
 
 v' A third indication of unity is the presence of ideas common to different 
 parts of the source, which serve to link the group together. The nar- 
 rative of the arrival of Jesus at Jerusalem shares (19:41-44) with the 
 Apocalyptic Discourse (21 : 20-24) and with the central narrative (23 : 27- 
 31, 48) the interest in the fall of Jerusalem. The Apocalyptic Discourse 
 also shares with the Farewell Discourse the description of future sufferings 
 of the disciples (21:12; 22:36-37), against which they are to defend 
 themselves (21:15; 22:36), and also the conception of the disciples as 
 prominent in the Kingdom, "set before" its King (21:34; 22:30). 
 Peter's denial is foretold in the Farewell Discourse (22:31-32) and de- 
 scribed in the central narrative (22:56-62), and the mention of a sword 
 in the Farewell Discourse (22:36, 38) is very surely reflected in the cen- 
 tral narrative (22:50), although Jesus' attitude is described as changed 
 (22:51). These links, if significant, will connect for us the initial nar- 
 rative, the central narrative, the Apocalyptic Discourse, and the Fare- 
 well Discourse. 
 
 The notion that Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem was very successful 
 (19:37, 48; 21:38; 23:27, 35, 48) is also reflected in the resurrection- 
 narratives (24:18). The resurrection-narratives also appear to share 
 with the Farewell Discourse the idea of the primacy of Peter (22:32; 
 24:34), and with the central narrative and the narrative of the Last 
 Supper the thought that Jesus passed immediately from the cross into 
 glory (22:16, 18; 23:43; 24:26; see p. 72). But the resurrection- 
 narratives are connected with the tomb-narratives by the mention of the 
 
 148 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 79 
 
 visit of the women (24: 2-9, 22). Within the central narrative the story 
 moves logically with Continual interdependence. A few of the remoter 
 dependences may be noted: the question of the trial, ei av el '6 xpi-f^Tos 
 (22:67), is repeated in irony at the cross (23:35, 39) and forms the 
 basis of the charge of treason in the Roman court (23 : 2, 5) ; the desertion 
 of the Twelve is implied at various points (22:31, 54, 58-60; 23:49), 
 as is the hostility of the "high priests" (19:47; 20:20, 26; 23:2, 5, 10, 
 13, 35; 24:20). These links of common ideas, if significant, will serve 
 to support the unity of the J materials. 
 
 ^ A fourth line of proof of the unity of the materials may be found in 
 the presence of turns of expression and words which are pecuUarly 
 characteristic of the materials and are present throughout, or at least in 
 different sections. Of the 37 characteristic words of J (those marked 
 t in the list. Appendix II), 14 are found only in the J materials of the 
 central narrative and the Farewell Discourse, and this group of materials 
 shares 5 words with the Apocalyptic Discourse, 6 with the narrative of 
 the resurrection appearances, 3 with the introductory narratives, and 2 
 with the burial narratives; that is, it is connected with the other groups 
 by a total of 16 words. The Apocalyptic Discourse is connected also 
 with the introductory narratives by 2 words and with the resurrection- 
 narratives by 2 words; that is, it is connected with the other groups by 
 a total of 9 words. The narrative of the resurrection appearances is 
 connected with the introductory narratives by 3 words and with the 
 burial narratives by 5 words, in addition to its other connections with 
 the Apocalyptic Discourse (2 words) and with the central narrative 
 (6 words); so that it is connected with the other narratives by 16 
 words. The connections of the introductory narratives and of the burial 
 narratives as given above total 8 words and 7 words, respectively. Thus 
 the test of language common to the various sections also seems to indi- 
 cate the unity of the J source. These connections are indicated upon the 
 accompanying diagram (p. 80). 
 
 Against the unity of these materials may be urged the fact that the 
 impersonal use of eyhero, which is rare in the J materials, approximates 
 the normal in the resurrection-narratives, occurring three times (24:15, 
 30, 51); but iroXvs, which is characteristically rare in the J materials, 
 does not occur at all in the resurrection-narratives; so that the previous 
 exception is hardly significant. In general, also, the fact that a consider- 
 able number of characteristic words and turns of style can be gathered 
 as distinctive of the whole group of materials seems to indicate that they 
 possess at least a degree of homogeneity. 
 
 149 
 
80 
 
 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 Connection formed by not more than two common words 
 Connection formed by three or more common words 
 Connection formed by five or more common words 
 
 Diagram of the Connection between Divisions of the Passion-Narrative 
 BY THE Occurrences of the Characteristic Words 
 
 Section A. The Introductory Narratives, 14 verses (19:28, 37-44, 47-48; 20: 
 
 34-36). 
 
 Section B. The Apocalyptic Discourse, 17 verses. 
 
 Section C. The Last Supper, Farewell Discourse, and Central Narratives, 88 verses. 
 
 Section D. Narratives of the Tomb, 13^ verses (23:50 — 24: loa). 
 
 Section E. Narratives of the resurrection appearances, 41 verses. 
 
 ■'''^ Fifth, a more delicate test of the unity of the materials may be 
 derived from their style and language by an examination of the dis- 
 tribution of those turns of style which are supposedly characteristic of the 
 source and of expressions which seem to hint at a Semitic origin. Are 
 they equally prevalent throughout, or does the coloring of the style vary 
 somewhat in different portions of the source? This test, of course, 
 cannot be appUed with mathematical accuracy, since the factors of lan- 
 guage are too many to be all taken account of; yet a decided and per- 
 sistent diversity in the coloring of the language of the different groups 
 must have considerable significance. 
 
 150 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 81 
 
 The distribution of the J characteristics, of the Aramaisms listed 
 by Wellhausen,^ and of the Lukan characteristics noted by Stanton,* 
 is presented in Table IV, which gives in detail the number of occurrences 
 in each section, and the average per verse. 
 
 TABLE IV 
 
 Sections 
 (J Verses Only) 
 
 J Characteristics 
 
 Number of 
 
 Words 
 Marked 
 t 
 
 Words 
 Marked 
 
 Propor- 
 tion per 
 Verse 
 
 Stanton 
 
 Lukan 
 Characteristics 
 
 Number 
 
 Propor- 
 tion per 
 Verse 
 
 Wellhausen 
 
 Aramaisms 
 
 Number 
 
 Propor- 
 tion per 
 Verse 
 
 Introductory narrative : 
 19:28,37-40,47-48.. 
 
 19:41-44 
 
 20:20, 26 
 
 20:34-36 
 
 Total. 
 
 Apocalyptic Discourse: 
 
 21:12-38 
 
 Last Supper narrative: 
 
 22:8, 14-23 
 
 Farewell Discourse: 
 
 22:24-38 
 
 Central narrative: 
 
 22:39-53 
 
 22:54-62 
 
 22:63-71 
 
 23:1-16 
 
 23:18-25 
 
 23:27-31 
 
 23:32-37 
 
 23:39-43 
 
 23:46-49 
 
 Total 
 
 Burial narrative: 
 
 23:50-56 
 
 24:1-10 
 
 Total 
 
 Resurrection narratives 
 
 24:13-35 
 
 24:36-43 
 
 24:44-49 
 
 24:50-53 
 
 Total 
 
 Total for all J 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 13 
 
 9l 
 
 ih 
 
 61 
 15 
 8 
 
 5 
 4 
 5 
 3I 
 
 64 
 
 5 
 8§ 
 
 i3t 
 
 23 
 8 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 41 
 173 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 14 
 
 34 
 
 13 
 2 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 16 
 
 1. 14 
 2.00 
 1 .00 
 0.66 
 
 I 25 
 
 II 
 
 20 
 
 0.87 
 
 1-53 
 
 0.82 
 
 1.69 
 
 1.26 
 0.80 
 0.53 
 I 13 
 1-30 
 0.20 
 1.50 
 1 .00 
 0.84 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 2 
 
 25 
 5 
 o 
 
 7 
 II 
 
 7 
 
 0.94 
 
 0.61 
 
 I 05 
 0.66 
 0.30 
 1.66 
 0.64 
 0.00 
 
 1-75 
 2.20 
 2.00 
 
 23 
 38 
 13 
 
 21 
 
 12 
 
 10 
 
 27 
 
 9 
 
 14 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 27 
 6 
 
 0.96 
 
 1 .60 
 1.30 
 
 72 
 
 1. 10 
 
 1.80 
 0.82 
 
 9 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 1 .40 
 
 1.30 
 0.62 
 0.16 
 1 .00 
 
 16 
 
 42 
 5 
 
 1. 18 
 
 1.83 
 0.62 
 
 1-33 
 1 .00 
 
 55 
 10 
 II 
 
 18 
 93 
 
 0.83 
 I 05 
 
 59 
 163 
 
 1-45 
 1. 14 
 
 84 
 318 
 
 1. 14 
 2.50 
 0.50 
 1-33 
 
 1.44 
 2.23 
 1-53 
 2-iS 
 
 2.21 
 1.60 
 
 82 
 80 
 16 
 80 
 00 
 1 . 20 
 2.28 
 
 1-73 
 
 1.80 
 1. 41 
 
 1-55 
 
 2.39 
 1-25 
 
 1.83 
 2.00 
 
 2.05 
 1.82 
 
 ' J. Wellhausen, Einleit., pp. 15-25. 
 
 ' V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, II, 287-90, 305-9. 
 
 151 
 
82 
 
 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 Note in Table V the proportions for the larger groups into which the 
 J matter appears to divide itself: 
 
 TABLE V 
 
 
 J Characteristics 
 
 Aramaisms 
 
 Lukan 
 Characteristics 
 
 Introductory narratives 
 
 0.87 
 
 1-53 
 0.82 
 1.69 
 0.96 
 1.40 
 0.83 
 
 1.44 
 2-33 
 1-53 
 
 2-15 
 
 1-73 
 1-50 
 2.0s 
 
 
 Apocalyptic Discourse 
 
 
 Last Supper narrative 
 
 0.94 
 
 61 
 
 Farewell Discourse 
 
 Central narratives 
 
 
 Burial narratives 
 
 
 Resurrection narratives 
 
 1-45 
 
 
 A study of these figures shows that there is no possible relation between 
 different columns to be discovered, that a large figure in one column is 
 not regularly accompanied by either a large or a small figure in the others. 
 This means that the variety of the hterature is such that httle can be 
 determined from the proportional frequency of one or another set of 
 stylistic particulars in any section of it. A few conclusions may be 
 drawn, however. 
 
 a) The proportion of Lukan characteristics Usted by Stanton is in 
 no one of the groups equal to that of the earlier Markan sections which 
 he lists.' Here, in the passages 4:31-44; 5:12-26; 8:22-56, 63 verses 
 in all, there are 107 Lukan characteristics, an average of i . 70 character- 
 istics per verse. None of the groups above reaches that average. There 
 seems to be, therefore, no reason for assigning any of the above-mentioned 
 blocks to the pen of the evangelist. 
 
 b) A high proportion of Aramaisms is, in the main, found in discourse 
 sections. Thus the figures run: 19:41-44, 2.50 per verse; Apocalyptic 
 Discourse, 2.23 per verse; Farewell Discourse, 2.15 per verse; Luke 
 23 ' 27-31, 2 . 80 per verse; but Luke 23 : 39-43, i . 20 per verse. In these 
 sections it is easily explained as due to the preservation of the original 
 form of the saying recorded. 
 
 In the Apocalyptic Discourse, however, it should be noted that 
 together with the high proportion of Aramaisms there goes a low pro- 
 portion of J characteristics. This does not appear in the summary 
 given above, but a closer examination shows that there are but a small 
 minority of the words truly characteristic of J and that the majority of 
 the words so listed are found in this section only of the Lukan writings. 
 
 Stanton, op. cit., pp. 279-86. 
 
 152 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 83 
 
 The proportion of J characteristics (6 words in 17 verses) might therefore 
 be given as o. 35, a very low figure. This would suggest that the Apoca- 
 lyptic Discourse was distinct from the rest of the J source, and it may 
 indeed have been originally a small independent apocalypse of the fall 
 of Jerusalem; but the difference in subject-matter will account in part 
 for the small number of J characteristics found in it, and its general 
 agreement with the remainder of the J materials against the rest of the 
 Lukan apocalyptic in several points, particularly the emphasis upon the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, would indicate that it must have been incor- 
 porated in J before that source reached the evangelist. In no other 
 section of the J source do the peculiar words largely outnumber the more 
 often repeated J characteristics. 
 
 The only other section where the Aramaic coloring is strong is that 
 of the narratives of the resurrection appearances (24:13-53), which has 
 an average of 2.05 Aramaisms per verse; while the remainder of the J 
 materials, aside from the discourse sections enumerated above, has an 
 average of 1.62 per verse, and the average of the infancy narratives is 
 only 2.52 per verse. This certainly suggests that the concluding narra- 
 tives of the Gospel were derived from a different source more akin to the 
 infancy narratives; but, on the other hand, the proportion of J character- 
 istics is just about the average (without an undue proportion of rare 
 words), and it has already been shown that these narratives are connected 
 in various ways with the rest of the J materials, so that it must be con- 
 cluded that they were a part of the J source, whatever the explanation 
 of the large proportion of Aramaisms may be. It should also be noted 
 that a similar proportion of Aramaisms (2.21) is found in a section 
 (22:39-53) which stands in the midst of the central narrative and 
 which is connected with the thread of the story of J by cross-references 
 and by the demands of the continuity of the narrative; so that a strong 
 Semitic coloring is not impossible to J materials. 
 
 The conclusion of our study thus far is, therefore, that no one portion 
 of the J materials can be shown, by any of the tests advanced, to be 
 disparate from the main body of the J source in thought or style. Except 
 for the minute elements, therefore, the J source as described above must ^ 
 be considered as a unity. We turn next to consider these briefer elements. 
 
 2. To assert of any source-document of the Gospels that no verse, 
 no logion, no saying or incident recorded in it could have been derived 
 from an extraneous source rather than from the document discussed is 
 manifestly impossible, and no such statement may be made in the present 
 instance. But it can be safely asserted that evidence is lacking to prove 
 
 153 
 
84 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 heterogeneity of many of the briefer elements of the J source. A few- 
 general arguments for their homogeneity may be adduced. 
 J First, there are no doublets in the J source. It has been shown above 
 (pp. 17-19) that doublets, especially those of the Third Gospel, result 
 most frequently from the duplication of the same saying in two sources, 
 both of which are inserted. Therefore the absence of doublets, while it 
 is evidence of a purely negative variety, looks toward the unity of the 
 document considered. Certain sayings and phrases do appear, it is 
 true, more than once in the J narrative; but these repetitions occur most 
 often in close succession, and it has been shown that such repetition is 
 a literary characteristic of the J materials (see p. 63). A possible 
 doublet is found in 22:40 and 46 (though this seems more probably a 
 repetition) ; but, if a doublet, the extraneous member is certainly derived 
 from the Markan source. 
 
 i Secondly, a complement to the absence of doublets is found in the 
 infrequency of contradictions. This is not total absence, and some 
 contradictions have already been pointed out (see pp. 72, 74); but 
 these are few, and seem to reflect merely the evangelist's point of view. 
 They lead simply to the conclusion, aheady recognized, that the source 
 has undergone a certain amount of editorial revision; but on these 
 grounds we must recognize an editorial hand in 24:7^^, 466, 47. The 
 contrast between the preservation of the disciples in trouble (21:18-19) 
 and their final victory and salvation (21 : 28) is hardly a contradiction of 
 ideas, nor is that between the metaphorical command to "buy a sword" 
 (even if intended literally as protection against assassination) (22:36) 
 and the protest against its use under particular circumstances (22:51). 
 4 Thirdly, the continuity of the narrative and the limitations imposed 
 by the necessity of consistent progress in it prohibit the introduction 
 of more than a few extraneous phrases. And of the verses of the J source 
 as we have it, few could be omitted without leaving a gap. A few of the 
 scattered verses of the introductory narrative have no close bond with 
 the general narrative, and have been admitted only under suspicion; 
 these we may still suspect, 20:20, 26, 34-36, and perhaps 19:47-48, 
 which to some extent duplicates 21:37-38. The remainder of the 
 materials assigned to J adhere quite closely to the general course of 
 the narrative. 
 
 There is therefore no reason for supposing that more than a few 
 verses, largely editorial, of the materials previously assigned to J were 
 wanting in the source of which the third evangelist made use. This 
 source then should be regarded as a unity. 
 
 154 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 85 
 
 II. LITERARY FORM 
 
 As regards the literary form of the J source there are several possi- 
 bilities. It may conceivably have been either an oral or a written 
 source, and again, its language might have been either Greek or Aramaic, 
 or possibly even Hebrew. To these possibilities we must now address 
 ourselves. Evidence may be adduced to the solution of this problem 
 along two chief lines: first, the Semitic coloring of the narrative, which 
 suggests that there was an original Aramaic narrative of the same 
 materials; and second, the Lukan coloring, which, if extensive, would 
 lead to the inference that the third evangelist either was giving literary 
 form to an oral tradition or was himself translating a document into the 
 Greek and thus giving it the impress of his own style. With this evidence 
 from style there are also further proofs to be adduced. We may turn 
 to the questions at issue. 
 
 I. Was the J source an oral cycle of tradition or a collection of oral » 
 traditions, or was it a written document ? 
 
 It has already been suggested (see pp. 27-30) that the divergences from 
 the Markan order are sufficiently numerous and important to preclude the 
 hypothesis that the J source consisted either of a mere collection of oral 
 traditions or of a series of comments by some Christian authority upon 
 the Markan account. It must have been a connected account with a 
 fixed order. It is difficult to suppose, however, that even the order of a 
 catechetical cycle of oral traditions would have prevailed in the mind of 
 the third evangelist over the order of the written Markan document. 
 This makes it seem more probable that J also was a written document. 
 
 The form of the conflations of J with Markan materials, especially 
 in the Apocalyptic Discourse, is at times sufficiently awkward (see 
 pp. 25-26) to show that it cannot have taken place in the mind of the 
 evangelist, as must have been the case had he been using an oral source 
 which he had committed to memory, but that they are true conflations 
 of the pen, formed by the interweaving of two documents. 
 
 A stronger argument may be drawn from the style of the J source. 
 It has been shown that the J materials have a greater proportion of 
 unusual and characteristic words than do adjacent Markan materials 
 (cf. p. 58). This could hardly be so were the evangeUst using an oral 
 source; for in such a case the literary form of the materials must inevit- 
 ably lose a considerable portion of its own peculiar characteristics and 
 take on rather the coloring of the evangeUst's own style. But the reverse 
 is, in fact, the case, for the Lukan characteristics as noted by Stanton* 
 
 ' Stanton, op. cU., pp. 279-309. 
 
 155 
 
86 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 are fewer than in the Markan materials (1.09 occurrences per verse, 
 against i . 70 per verse in Markan materials) ; and this is in spite of the 
 fact that 97 of the 151 words listed by Hawkins' as characteristic of 
 Luke are found in the J materials. 
 •1 2. Was the J document written in Greek or in Aramaic ? 
 
 The fact that the Semitic coloring of the J materials is stronger than 
 that of Markan materials (i . 82 per verse, or i . 67 per verse for the narra- 
 tive portions, against i . 45 per verse in the Markan sections of Luke 20, 
 see p. 68) suggests that the J source was an Aramaic document. A 
 comparison with the infancy narratives, however, furnishes a means of 
 checking up the worth of this impression. Of these materials we may 
 accept the verdict of Bacon^ that Torrey has "demonstrated" the fact 
 that they were translated from a Semitic source. What then is their 
 aspect? Two points should be noted: first, that they show a strong 
 Semitic coloring (2.52 Aramaisms per verse); and second, that they 
 have an equally large proportion of Lukan characteristics.^ These two 
 features — strong Semitic coloring and predominance of Lukan charac- 
 teristics — may then be considered as typical of translations by the third 
 evangehst from Aramaic or Hebrew. The fact then that the Semitic 
 coloring of the J materials is not so strong as that of the infancy narra- 
 tives casts doubt upon the hypothesis that they came to the evangehst in a 
 Semitic version, and the further fact that the proportion of Lukan charac- 
 teristics is smaller even than in the Markan materials quite disproves it. 
 
 Further proof that the document was Greek is also to be found in 
 its pecuHarities of vocabulary and style, which have been fully discussed 
 already (pp. 56-66). The fact that it has stronger Semitic coloring than 
 have the Markan materials might be explained by the hypothesis that 
 it was originally composed in Aramaic, and was not a free composition 
 in Greek as Mark probably was. 
 
 It seems quite apparent, therefore, that the J source came to the 
 third evangelist in the form of a document written in Greek, but possibly a 
 translation of an earlier Aramaic composition or collection of traditions. 
 
 III. CONTENT AND ORDER 
 
 I. The Jerusalem source is now presented to us as having been a 
 written document, and it remains simply to reconstruct, as far as pos- 
 sible, its original form. In the case of this source the task will not be 
 
 ■ Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2d ed., 1909), pp. 16-23. 
 
 *B. W. Bacon, "More Philological Criticism of Acts," American Journal of 
 Theology, XXII (19 18), 3. 
 
 3 Hawkins, op. cit. (2d ed., 1909), p. 25. 
 
 156 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 87 
 
 diflScult. Any account of the Passion period of Jesus' life and ministry 
 is required, by the very nature of the facts with which it deals, to preserve 
 a certain rather definite outline. The arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, 
 and burial form a series of events which can have but a single order. A 
 farewell discourse or a farewell meal with the disciples must precede 
 these; so too must an apocalyptic discourse, if intended for the admoni- 
 tion of the disciples. The fright and desertion of the disciples, if it is to 
 have significance, must be inserted before Jesus' death, or even earlier. 
 No extended discourse to the populace could be inserted in the center 
 of the narrative, save possibly in the guise of Jesus' speech in his own 
 defense at the trial, and even so it would seriously interrupt the narra- 
 tive. It is evident, then, that the order of the Jerusalem source would 
 have been quite well determined by the necessary course of events. 
 
 It is likewise evident that a considerable amount of duplication 
 between dififerent Passion-narratives is inevitable. Any and all narra- 
 tives of the event must contain mention of the arrest, trial, crucifixion, 
 and death of Jesus, and some mention of his parting with the disciples 
 and of his burial and resurrection is almost equally inevitable. The J 
 source, therefore, will inevitably have related much that was told also 
 in Mark, and some of its materials may have been supplanted by similar 
 matter drawn from the Markan source; but as a matter of fact it is 
 rarely that it is necessary to complete it from the Markan materials. 
 
 It is also to be expected that, in accord with his use of other sources, 
 the evangelist will here also have edited and improved the form of his 
 source, especially at the beginning or the end of a section. A pretty clear 
 sample of this is found in 22 ; 24, where the language quite closely approxi- 
 mates that of a similar editorial introduction, 9 : 46 ; but it is impossible, 
 of course, to detect the hand of the evangelist certainly in every case. 
 
 2. The content of the J source has already been examined with 
 considerable minuteness in the process of discriminating the materials 
 of our study (see chap, iii), and the great mass of its materials have been 
 enumerated (see p. 54). It remains to satisfy ourselves that this is an 
 adequate description. As far as the materials thus described are con- 
 cerned, there are few objections to be raised. A few verses (24:7, 46, 
 47) may contain phrases that are due to the hand of the editor; but in 
 none have there been discovered any decisive indications of derivation 
 from another source. It remains to discuss the verses classed as more 
 doubtful, with one or two others. The following should be added to J: 
 
 19:47-48. These verses furnish the conclusion without which the 
 account of the arrival of Jesus at Jerusalem would close very abruptly, 
 
 157 
 
88 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 and they contain the idea of his popularity with the populace (cf. 
 23:27, 48, etc.), which is characteristic of J. 
 
 21:10, lib. The Apocalyptic Discourse, as previously given, is 
 without a suitable introduction. The words rore ekeyev avrois in 
 vs. 10 create a break in the discourse which hints at a transition to a 
 new document, and the words which follow in vs. 10, while paralleled in 
 Mark, are a quotation from Isa. 19:2, and so easily duplicated in more 
 than one source, while vs. 116 contains details not found in Mark. Verse 
 iia, however, seems to be Markan. 
 
 22:33. The words <f>v\aKr] and iropevecdai are characteristic or fre- 
 quent in J, so it is likely that Peter's reply (though not vs. 34) stood in J. 
 
 22 : 466. This phrase is paralleled in Mark; but its repetition would 
 be natural to J (cf. p. 63), and the idea of temptation is quite promi- 
 nent in the source (cf. p. 73). 
 
 22:50, 516. The words irarao-o-co, eh, and the partitive use of k 
 are characteristic of J. Verse 516 is closely connected with vs. 50. 
 
 22:53a. Verse 536 requires some introduction, and the previous 
 portion of the verse, which does not follow the Markan parallel at all 
 closely, would furnish this. If it stood in J it must have had some intro- 
 duction, but this need not have been more than simply Kal eKeytv 
 
 aVTOLS. 
 
 23 : 25. The repetitiousness and the word <f>v\aKij are characteristic 
 of J. 
 
 23:47. The naturalness (dramatic verisimilitude) with which the 
 Roman speaks is a characteristic of J. 
 
 23:55-56. Already assigned to J. The word , fivrj/xeiov is frequent 
 in J materials. 
 
 A few other verses should be mentioned: 
 
 20:17-18. Verse 18 may have been an editorial comment in a 
 collection of "testimonies"' and introduced here either by the evange- 
 list or by a later scribe, as it was, apparently, in Matthew. 
 
 20:20, 26. These contain none of the characteristic words of J, 
 and their insertion here is hardly in the usual manner of Luke's literary 
 method had they been taken from a source. 
 
 20:34-36. Certainly from a source, but no J context for it is appar- 
 ent. It may or may not belong to J, or possibly to the same collection 
 of "testimonies" from which 20: 18 was drawn. 
 
 23:5i6-53a. Markan materials replacing a necessary J con- 
 nection. 
 
 ' Cf. Rendel Harris, Testimonies, Part I, 1916. 
 
 158 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 89 
 
 24: 1. Markan materials where a J connection is necessary. 
 
 3. Enough has been said already to indicate that the only possible 
 order for the majority of the materials is that in which they now stand. 
 In addition it has been made evident that Luke habitually uses his 
 sources in their own order (see pp. 6, 13 f.). It is therefore probable that 
 the original order of the J source is that in which it now stands in Luke, 
 and there are no serious objections to this order to be found. 
 
 The Jerusalem document' then contained an account of the closing 
 period of Jesus' ministry from the time of his arrival in the city through 
 the resurrection appearances. It may have contained, in the earUer 
 portion, a fuller account of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem than we now ^ 
 have remaining, but as far as we can reconstruct it, it falls into nine 
 divisions: 
 
 1. Jesus' Arrival in Jerusalem (19:28, 37-44, 47-48; 20:34-36 [?]). 
 
 2. The Apocalypse of Jerusalem (21:10, x\b-\2a, 13-15, 18-20, 
 216-22, 236-26^, 28, 34-38). 
 
 3. The Last Supper (22:8, 14-195, 21, 23). 
 
 4. The Farewell Discourse (22:24-33, 35-39). 
 
 5. The Arrest of Jesus and His Desertion by the Disciples (22:40- 
 41, 426-52^, 53, 54«, 55-6oa, 6ia6, 62-65). 
 
 6. The Trial of Jesus (22:66a, 67-68, 70; 23:1-2, 4-225, 22C-25). 
 
 7. The Crucifixion (23:27-33, 35-37, 39-43, ^^-^9o)^ 
 
 8. The Narratives of the Tomb (23 : 50-515, 53C-56; 24 : 2-ioa). 
 
 9. The Resurrection Appearances (24:13-53). 
 
 » For a reconstruction of the document see Appendix III. 
 
 159 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE RELATIONS OF THE JERUSALEM SOURCE 
 
 I. PROVENANCE AND AUTHOR 
 
 I. Provenance. — It has already been pointed out (see p. 86) that 
 the Semitic or Aramaic coloring of the language of the Jerusalem docu- 
 ment is sufficiently strong to suggest that the materials originated in a 
 Jewish environment, and that a comparison with the Second Gospel 
 serves to strengthen the impression of their Jewish origin. But the test 
 of language alone cannot be decisive in this matter, and we may seek 
 further lines of examination. 
 
 It is apparent, then, that not only the style of the J document, but 
 its thought also, is that of a Jewish Christian community. The pre- 
 dominant interest of the whole document is in Jesus as the Messiah, 
 and there is none of the Pauline interest in him as savior from sin. The 
 very Aramaic title for the Messiah appears once, "Christ, a king" (23 : 2). 
 
 There is no recognition of the presence of Gentiles in the Kingdom 
 (22:30), save in the general (and perhaps editorial) command to preach 
 to them (24:47). So also there is a large interest in the fulfilment of 
 scripture (cf. 21:22; 22:37; 24:25, 44-45). Again, there is a real 
 interest in the Temple, and Jesus is closely conjiected with it (cf. 19:47; 
 21 :38; 22 : 53), and the disciples are represented as making it the cradle 
 of the Christian movement (24:53). Of the Jewish ritual also there is 
 approval, since Jesus is represented as desirous to observe the Passover 
 (22:15). And the general tone of the narrative throughout reflects a 
 Jewish environment.' 
 
 Certain details which appear to depart from this Jewish standpoint 
 do not in reaUty do so. The fact that Pilate is represented as exonerating 
 Jesus (23:4, 14, 22) and as desirous to save him is really motivated by 
 resentment against the Jewish authorities who are represented as 
 responsible for his death, and perhaps even the actual agents in his 
 crucifixion (cf. 23:25; 24:20). And the favorable comment of the cen- 
 turion, which seems to imply approval of a Roman's act, is introduced 
 
 ' Cf. P. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Ueberlieferung des Lukas (1891), 61-62; B. 
 Weiss, Quellen der syn. Ueberlief., p. 170. Wellhausen {Einleit., p. 71) describes the 
 materials peculiar to Luke as "Hellenistic and cosmopolitan throughout"; but 
 he draws no examples of this from the Passion-narrative. 
 
 90 [160 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 91 
 
 simply to magnify Jesus and to strengthen the impression of his inno- 
 cence, and is fully offset by the mockery of the soldiers (23 : 36-37). 
 
 But there is also a peculiar interest in Jerusalem. It is represented 
 as the base of the Christian movement (24:49, 53) and the scene of the 
 appearances of the risen Jesus (24:7, 15, 34, 36). The whole narrative 
 is laid within its Umits, and its immediate environs — Emmaus (24:13) 
 and the direction of Bethany (24:50) — are the only localities beyond 
 which figure at all in the narrative. There is a considerable interest, 
 also, in the populace of Jerusalem, who, in contradistinction to the rulers, 
 are thought of as favorable to Jesus — that is, to the Christian movement 
 (cf. 23:27, 48, etc.). And there is, moreover, an element of urbanity, 
 an appreciation of a diverse point of view, as in the sentiment attributed 
 to the centurion (23:47, see p. 64), which is most native to the life of the 
 city. And finally, there is a very persistent interest in the capture and 
 destruction of Jerusalem (19:41-44; 21:20-24; 23:27-31, 48, see 
 p. 96), which argues that the author or his circle had a special attach- 
 ment to the city. This sentiment is, indeed, attributed to Jesus him- 
 self, in that he is described as having wept for the city (19:41) as he 
 bid others do (23 : 28). 
 
 This evidence, then, would all seem to indicate that the Jerusalem 
 document took form in a Palestinian environment, and the natural 
 conclusion that this must have been in the mother-church at Jerusalem 
 is further borne out by the interests of the source. 
 
 2. Author. — As to the identity of the author, Uttle can be said posi- 
 tively. He was, presumably, a native of his community, a Jewish 
 Christian. But his cosmopoUtan urbanity to some degree offsets this, 
 and argues that he must have been, if of Jewish birth, a broad and 
 cultured man. He may have been an eyewitness of the events he 
 describes; this would account for the verisimilitude with which he 
 recounts the remarks of his characters (see p. 64), and for the exact 
 details of his narrative (see p. 62). The recurring interest in the dis- 
 ciples outside the number of the Twelve (19:37-49; 24: 10, 33) suggests 
 that the author himself may have been one of them. 
 
 Finally, it may be suggested, but only tentatively, that the author 
 was Cleopas (24:18).' The astonishing fact that this narrative of 
 Jesus' appearance to two otherwise unknown disciples is the longest in 
 the Gospel, while that of his appearance to Peter is passed over with an 
 indirect reference (24:34), would be explicable were it really a bit of 
 
 ' Hamack (Luke the Physician, p. 153 ; Lukas der Arzt, p. 108) ascribes this material 
 to Philip the evangelist and his daughters. 
 
 161 
 
92 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 autobiography, while other explanation is wanting if the section be from 
 J (as now seems probable) rather than a free composition by the evange- 
 list (see pp. 53-54). 
 
 II. DATE 
 
 If the origin of the Jerusalem document is really to be traced to the 
 Jewish Christian community of Jerusalem, its date is most naturally 
 to be sought in the period preceding the fall of the city in 70 a.d.; 
 for the flight of the Jerusalem community to Pella seems to have marked 
 the end of their significance in the Christian movement. Against this 
 early date, it would seem, the vivid descriptions of the fall of the city 
 furnish strong evidence; but their testimony is not so positive as seems 
 at first apparent, and they need to be interpreted in the light of other 
 facts. We turn first, therefore, to an examination of other indications 
 of the date at which the Jerusalem source took shape. 
 
 i. Persecution. — First of these is the reflection of a persecution of the 
 disciples. This is seen in the explicit references to persecution (21:12-19; 
 22:37), in the warning not to fail under trials (22:31) and the promise of 
 reward for those who persevere (22 : 28-29), and in the injunction to meet 
 official attack passively (22:51). But there is also a prediction that the 
 persecution will not be fatal; they will withstand their enemies (21:15) 
 and not a hair of their head will fall (21:18-19), and their deliverance 
 from the toils will come (21:28). Indeed, while a sword to keep off 
 robbers and assassins may be needed (22:36), organized resistance is 
 not necessary (22:38). Again, this persecution is a purely official 
 action; for there is a bitter enmity against the ruhng classes, who are 
 represented as the enemies of Jesus (19:47; 21 :37; 24: 20), as bringing 
 about his death (23: 2, 23), and even as its direct agents (23:25; 24:20); 
 but the populace is thought of as favorable to him (23:27; 23:48; 
 cf. 19:48; 21:38; 24:19). 
 
 Into what known situation of the early Christian community do these 
 facts fit ? We have record in the Acts of two periods of persecution, 
 one which arose with the martyrdom of Stephen, in which Saul was 
 instrumental in the imprisonment of the Christians (Acts 8:2; 9: 2, 14), 
 but where there is no mention of executions, save in Saul's fevered pur- 
 pose (Acts 9:1), and the second persecution, under Herod Agrippa I, 
 about A.D. 44, in which James was executed and Peter imprisoned 
 (cf. Acts 12: 1-3). From that time on, the church seems to have Uved 
 in harmony with its Jewish surroundings, save for the execution of 
 James the Just and a few others in 62 a.d. (cf. Eus. H.E. ii. 23. 21; 
 
 162 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 93 
 
 Joseph. Ant. xx. 9. i), and there is nothing to indicate that there 
 was any popular feehng against the Christians; but it appears rather 
 that the opposition came entirely from the Jewish authorities. This 
 situation, that of a humble class in disfavor with the authorities, but 
 respected by the common people, is that reflected in the J source, and we 
 might easily believe that it took form, possibly in the first persecution, 
 about 34-35 A.D., but perhaps more probably at the time of the second, 
 when the anticipation of a general assault and the memory of the preser- 
 vation of the disciples through the former persecution would combine 
 to give it the coloring of dread of persecution and hope of safety. The 
 flight of the Christian community from Jerusalem to Pella, at the time of 
 the siege, was felt by the Jews as desertion and treachery,^ and the 
 breach remained wide; so that after 68 a.d. there could have been no 
 such feehng of cordial sympathy for the populace of the city as we find 
 here. The date here indicated, then, would be about 44 a.d., or less 
 probably, at the time of the execution of James, 62 a.d. 
 
 Again, there is a reference, not found elsewhere in the Gospels, to 
 the imprisonment of Peter (22:33). According to Acts, Peter was 
 several times arrested (Acts 4:3; 5:18; 12:4-5), but only on the last 
 occasion, when imprisoned by Herod Agrippa, was he kept in prison for 
 any length of time. This was in 44 a.d. probably, and though still in 
 Jerusalem at the time of the Council, he appears to have left Jerusalem 
 shortly after (Gal. 2:11) and to have left for the West by the time 
 I Cor. was written (I Cor. 1:12; cf. I Cor. 9:5). The reference to his 
 imprisonment points, then, to the same date, ca. 44 a.d. ; later, interest 
 in that event would have waned. 
 
 2. The political situation. — Politically a similar situation is reflected. 
 There is a large interest in Herod Antipas, and especially in presenting 
 him as acquitting Jesus (23:7-12). Such a tradition might be thought 
 to have considerable apologetic weight with Agrippa I in the defense of 
 those Christians who had been arrested by him. Again, the relation 
 between Herod and Pilate as sketched in the J source (23:7, 11, 15) 
 seems to reflect more or less the relation which prevailed with some of 
 the later procurators, as between Festus and Agrippa (Acts 25:13 ff.), 
 but also depicted in all the mingling of the Herods in Jewish politics. 
 The interest in Herod's relation to Jesus, then, seems to best fit the 
 time of Agrippa's persecution. 
 
 3. The ecclesiastical situation. — This is also primitive. There is a 
 considerable interest in the larger group of disciples not of the number 
 
 ' Cf. A. C. McGiffert, The Apostolic Age, p. 563. 
 
 163 
 
94 > HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 of the Twelve. Their enthusiastic outburst of praise receives a com- 
 mendatory justification from Jesus (19:37-40), the leaders are bidden 
 to respect and minister to them (22:24-27), and they are brought into 
 the narrative as sharing in full in its events collectively (24: 10, 33) and 
 figuring prominently as individuals (24:13,18). On the other hand there 
 is a considerable interest in establishing and supporting the authority of 
 the apostles. Their prominence is tacitly recognized in the command to 
 humihty (22: 25-27), and it is they who shall be the rulers and judges of 
 the new Kingdom (22:28-30), and who are recognized to have held 
 closest communion with Jesus upon earth (22:14, is)- But Peter's 
 primacy is especially supported; he establishes the brethren (22:32); 
 he is the first to recover from the blow of Jesus' arrest and rally to his 
 old allegiance (22:61-62); he is the first of the apostles to reach the 
 resurrection faith (24:34); and he, as the minister (22:8), is the greatest 
 (22:26). This attitude toward the disciples seems to reflect a period 
 when the ecclesiastical organization was at a minimum, and all disciples 
 were teachers, but when the authority of the apostles and the practical 
 leadership of Peter were recognized. It may reflect, too, the period of 
 the gentile controversy, and the Council at Jerusalem, when Paul, 
 not a member of the Twelve, became prominent. It could hardly be 
 much later than the time of Peter's departure from Jerusalem, else 
 traditions exalting the name of another — for example, James — must 
 have been more prominent. 
 
 There are traces of greater elaboration of the ecclesiastical organi- 
 zation, however. In the passage 22:25-27 the use of the term vewrepos 
 may imply the existence of Tpeafivrepoi, and the 8i.aKov(x>v also appears; 
 but both of the words retain largely their literal significance (cf. 22: 27). 
 This argues a fairly early date for the material (cf. Acts 6:2-3). 
 
 The sacraments also are simple. The breaking of bread (24:30) 
 resembles the Agape rather than the Eucharist, as though the former 
 observance stood higher in the contemporary esteem; and where the 
 Eucharist is described (22:17-19) it has an unusual order found else- 
 where only in the Didache (Did. 9:4; cf. also I Cor. 10:16). 
 
 4. Christology. — The person of Christ is presented in very simple 
 terms (cf. above, pp. 71-72). In general he moves through the narrative 
 in completely human guise, as of one whom God should appoint to be 
 Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 2:36; 3:20; 5:31, etc.). There is a definite 
 purpose to prove that he is, proleptically, the Christ (cf. p. 71). He is 
 also presented as the Servant of the Lord described by the exiHc Isaiah 
 (22:27; 22:37; cf. Isa. 53:12). These are elements of the earliest Chris- 
 
 164 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 95 
 
 tology of the Christian community as the early chapters of Acts present 
 it to us. 
 
 In function he is thought of as having present power, to save in 
 peril (21:15), to intercede with God (22:32), and to mediate divine 
 power (22:29) — an attitude that appears to have prevailed in the early 
 church, when they made prayer to Jesus for revelation of his will in the 
 lot (Acts 1:23) or used the power of his name to work miracles 
 (Acts 3:16, etc.). But the large interest in Jesus is in presenting him 
 as one who should come in the office of apocalyptic Messiah, by virtue 
 of his having suffered and been raised to heaven (cf. Acts 3:20-21; 
 2:32-33; 5:30-31)- The necessity of proving that Jesus is Messiah, 
 and the corollary that the Messiah is to come from heaven, was one of 
 the first that confronted the Christian community, and one which ceased 
 to loom large when Christianity passed from the Jewish environment. 
 It cannot be dated closely, but probably was more necessary in the earher 
 portion of the period between Pentecost and the flight to Pella, when the 
 new movement was at once the most active and the least understood. 
 
 The significance of Jesus' death is also a large interest in the J source. 
 The main purpose of the document, indeed, is to describe that event, 
 and its composition is therefore unthinkable until the death of Jesus 
 took on meaning in the thought of the Christian community. But this 
 interest began with their resurrection faith; for as soon as they at- 
 tempted to describe Jesus as the apocaljrptic Messiah, they had to explain 
 the meaning of his death. The interest is here expressed in two ways. 
 There is first a hint of the diflSculty felt by many at the fact of Jesus' 
 death, with a warning that this difiiculty was devised by Satan (22:31). 
 But the chief interest is to interpret the hard fact, and the explanation is 
 frequently given that Jesus died to fulfil the prophecies (22:37; 24:26- 
 27, 32, 44-46), because this was the means to his exaltation. This 
 interpretation is identical with that offered by the primitive apostolic 
 preaching as it is described in the early chapters of Acts (cf. especially 
 3:18-21). 
 
 5. Eschatology. — The eschatology of the J materials is closely con- 
 nected with their Christology and scarcely needs independent discussion. 
 It should merely be noted that there are some very early traditions which 
 represent an expectation that the Kingdom would come with the arrest 
 of Jesus, before his next meal (22 : 18), or at least before another Passover 
 (22:16), and a slightly later tradition which interposes a period of per- 
 secution (chap. 21). The conception of a purely earthly kingdom is 
 vigorously combatted in the description of the person of the Messiah, 
 
 165 
 
96 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 and even the messianic entry is broadened by the succeeding passage 
 (19:44) into the visit of the prophet and his announcement of the King- 
 dom. This polemic against the national and earthly view of the King- 
 dom was an essential feature of all the early Christian propaganda; 
 and the imminent expectation of the Kingdom is probably not later than 
 the early period of Paul's missionary work, or about 45 a.d., for there is 
 no expression of the thought that it must wait even upon the evangeli- 
 zation of the Gentiles, an idea reflected by the other synoptists (Mark 
 13: 10; Matt. 24: 14) and in Paul's pressing haste to preach to the ends 
 of the world. 
 
 6. The fall of Jerusalem. — The data thus far presented have all 
 inclined to a date before the destruction, quite positively, and, so far 
 as they admit of closer definition, to the period about, or shortly preceding, 
 45 A.D. Now it is generally supposed that the descriptions of the fall of 
 Jerusalem (19:41-44; 21:20-24) reflect the actual events of the year 
 70 A.D., and that Luke has here remodeled his Markan source (at least 
 in 21 : 20-24) to fit the event. But it has been shown that in the Apoca- 
 l5^tic Discourse Luke is making use of a second documentary source, and 
 since the date of this source is in other respects to be set much earlier, we 
 must raise the question whether this is, in truth, a vaticinium ex eventu. 
 
 In the passage 21 : 20-24 the description seems at first sight definite 
 enough, but a closer inspection reveals the fact that it is cast in the 
 most general of terms; the beleaguering forces (vs. 20), the slaughter and 
 enslavement of the inhabitants, and the razing of the city (vs. 24) were the 
 features of any successful siege, and could be imagined by any author 
 without having witnessed or known of the operations against Jerusalem; 
 and the warning to leave the city before the siege commenced was plain 
 common sense. Torrey' points out that the key to the interpretation 
 is certainly to be found in the reflection of Old Testament prophecy; 
 for the author himself cites it as his authority for the fulfilment of all 
 that is written (21:22). 
 
 The passage 19:41-44 is yet more definite, and describes the line of 
 circum valla tion, the razing of the city, and the slaughter of the inhabit- 
 ants. Yet even these are generalized to a considerable extent, and do 
 not correspond in minute particulars to the descriptions of Josephus. 
 Thus the scarcity of timber led Titus to surround the city with a wall 
 (reTxos, Jos. B.J. v. 12. 2) instead of the more usual paUsade or rampart 
 {xo-pa.^ described by J (19:43); and of many of the important works, 
 the mounds, rams, etc., described by Josephus, the Jerusalem source 
 
 'C. C, Torrey, Composition and Date of Acts, pp. 69-70. 
 
 166 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 97 
 
 makes no mention, nor of the civil war and famine within the beleaguered 
 city or the carrying into slavery of its inhabitants. Moreover, nearly 
 every detail could be supplied, were that necessary, from such Old Testa- 
 ment passages as Ezek. 4:2-3 and Ps. 137: 7-9.' There is then nothing 
 in the details of this passage, though it is the most definite of the series, 
 to preclude the possibiUty that it took form well before the time of the 
 Jewish War. 
 
 As far as the details go, therefore, these prophecies against Jerusa- 
 lem may well be dated at the same period as the rest of the materials of 
 J, possibly reminiscent of the crisis when Caligula ordered his statue 
 in the Temple (cf. Joseph. Ani. xviii. 8; B. J. ii. 10; Tac. Ann. xii. 54). 
 
 It remains, however, to explain the lively interest felt by the source 
 in the general subject of the destruction; for it recounts, not merely 
 the two prophecies above, but also the more general prediction of 23 : 27- 
 31 and the vague premonition of woe in 23 :48. In a writer just follow- 
 ing the period of the Jewish War such an interest is easily explained — 
 and this may be the reason why the evangelist saw fit to employ these 
 materials — but do grounds for such an interest appear earlier ? 
 
 The motive which lay behind it, whether before or after the fall of 
 the city, was to show that, by the refusal to accept Jesus as the Christ, 
 the Jews had forfeited their ancient promises and were liable to punish- 
 ment. This idea, which beyond doubt received a tremendous impetus 
 from the destruction of Jerusalem, was yet a feature of the early apos- 
 tolic preaching, according to the picture of Acts (cf. Acts 3:19-23; 
 4:12), and apparently even became sharpened into a prophecy against 
 the Temple (Acts 6:14). Can we discover, then, in the period before the 
 fall of Jerusalem, any causes which would fan this idea that Judaism was 
 under condemnation into such a flame of denunciation as we find in J ? 
 
 The expectation is easily explained: the world in which the early 
 Christians lived was united in the assumption that the present world- 
 order was under the governance of Satan and the powers of evil 
 (cf . Luke 22 : 53), and that salvation must take the form of an escape from 
 this dominion. The Jew expected this deliverance to come through the 
 triumph of the Messiah and the destruction by him of the present order 
 of things. For the Christian, therefore, who identified Jesus with the 
 Messiah, and expected him to come in glory and consume the world and 
 the evil powers at a single stroke, the only escape from disaster must be 
 the acceptance of Jesus; and the first event in the program must be to 
 dislodge Satan from his stronghold, the city which had rejected Jesus. 
 
 ' Cf . B. Weiss, op. cil., Text u. Unters., 32 (1908), 3; pp. 184 f. 
 
 167 
 
98 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 It was easy, therefore, for the Christian community to arrive at the 
 conclusion that Jerusalem was under Satan's dominion, and must be 
 destroyed unless she should repent, and this is just the attitude which is 
 reflected in the first oracle against the city — she had failed to recognize 
 her opportunity of escape, and was therefore doomed to destruction 
 (19:44; cf. Acts 3:23). The reconciliation of this attitude with the 
 cordial feeling of the J author to the Jewish populace may seem difi&cult; 
 but it probably lies in the strong sense of the organic unity of the com- 
 munity — as for the ancient prophets, so for the Christian, the nation 
 must sufifer for the sins of its rulers. 
 
 And the specific occasion for the prominence of such predictions of 
 disaster to those who had rejected Jesus as the Christ has already been 
 observed: it lay in the persecution which the Christians were suffering. 
 Two motives are universally employed to strengthen those under per- 
 secution, the hope of reward and the promise of revenge. The former 
 we have already observed in the J materials (cf. 21:28; 22:29-30); 
 but the latter appears only in the oracles against Jerusalem. That these 
 are intended to function thus and to strengthen the faith of persecuted 
 Christians is clear enough from the very apposition of the second passage 
 (21:20-24) to the prophecy of the persecution and the promise that it 
 will not be mortal (21 : 12-19). The interest, then, that preserved these 
 oracles against Jerusalem in the J source was the persecution of the 
 disciples, and this, it has been shown, was probably about 44 a.d. 
 
 7. Conclusions. — It has thus been shown that all of the materials 
 
 reflect a situation that prevailed in the primitive Christian community 
 
 of Jerusalem by the year 45 a.d., and that there is no need to as- 
 
 % sign any of them to a later period. But the preservation of the color- 
 
 I ing of this early day would be difficult unless the traditions had been 
 
 ^ handed down in written form, and most difficult had they not been 
 
 compiled into a connected cycle. It may therefore be concluded that 
 
 the Jerusalem document was committed to writing — in Aramaic of 
 
 course — about the end of the reign of Herod Agrippa I, or at the time 
 
 of his persecution, when the scattering of the community and the loss of 
 
 its leaders would make the careful preservation of its traditions a matter 
 
 of especial importance. 
 
 in. PURPOSE AND HISTORICAL VALUE 
 
 The interest of the author of the Jerusalem document is chiefly 
 that of the historian, to present an account of the events which led up 
 to and followed the death of Jesus. But his choice of this particular 
 
 168 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 99 
 
 period of Jesus' life must have been directed by some underlying motives. 
 The first of these seems to have been an apologetic one, to present the 
 details of that event about which centered the Christian apologetic 
 in regard to the messiahship of Jesus, and to show how he could be the 
 Suffering Servant and the apocalyptic Messiah. A second motive may 
 have been a parenetic one, to encourage the disciples in the midst of 
 trial and persecution by the example of their Lord and by the comfort of 
 his promises of reUef and threats of vengeance. The fact of persecution, 
 too, which threatened to scatter the community and to deprive them of 
 their leaders and of those who could relate from their personal experience 
 the traditions about Jesus, may have been instrumental in leading the 
 author to collect and commit to writing the traditions which the com- 
 munity valued. 
 
 Of the historical value of the narratives included in the J document 
 it is impossible to give satisfactory demonstration; but they commend 
 themselves as reasonable. A presumption in favor of their accuracy is 
 estabhshed by the fact that the third evangelist chose to follow these ma- 
 terials rather than the Markan narrative, if any weight is to be attached 
 to either the good sense or the purpose of accurate investigation which he 
 has professed (Luke 1:3). The narrative is inherently more probable 
 also in its details and relation. As Burkitt^ points out, the mocking of 
 Jesus is attributed to the idling guards and not to the priests, the trial 
 of Jesus is set in the morning and not at midnight, the mock adoration 
 of Jesus is attributed to Antipas' soldiers and not to the Romans, and 
 the accusation brought against Jesus is far more definite and contains 
 the "genuinely Jewish phrase" xpi-f^Tdv ^aaCkka. Furthermore, the 
 presence of "eyewitness details" — exact details of time and place 
 (see pp. 62 f.) and exact reporting of remarks (see p. 64), together with 
 the other evidence that the author was an eyewitness of the events he 
 describes and one of the larger body of disciples — all this goes to show 
 that he was in a position to write accurately of the things he narrates. 
 Again, he records events which do not accord well with his own view- 
 point and purpose, such as Jesus' acceptance of the title of Son of David 
 (19:37-40, see p. 72) and his prediction of the fulfilment of the King- 
 dom before the next Passover (22:16). 
 
 And finally, he possessed the insight and breadth of view which are 
 essential to accurate writing; whether or not he was an eyewitness, 
 he had a sympathetic understanding of a diverse point of view, revealed 
 in his fine distinctions between the taunts of Jew and Roman at the 
 
 ' F. C. Burkitt, Gospel History and Its Transmission, pp. 136-39. 
 
 169 
 
100 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 cross, for instance (see p. 64), which would enable him to write with a 
 certain degree of objectivity and to criticize the traditions presented 
 to him. We can hardly accept, then, for these materials the verdict 
 of Harnack,' who attributes them, with the remainder of Luke's pecuUar 
 materials, to Phihp and his four prophesying daughters, and characterizes 
 the whole as "altogether wanting in sober-mindedness and credibility." 
 Rather the historic value of the Jerusalem document must in any case 
 be rated high; and if the author was indeed a disciple and an eye- 
 witness, it becomes of prime importance. 
 
 IV. LITERARY RELATIONS 
 
 The early date of the Jerusalem document established, the question 
 is raised: What relation had this document to the other source- 
 documents of the gospels, and to the other gospels? This problem 
 must now receive attention. 
 
 I. Relation to other sources of Luke. — It has been shown (p. 56) 
 that the vocabulary of J is related more closely to that of the non-Markan 
 portions of Luke than to that of the sections derived from the Markan 
 source, since it contains 132 words found only in the non-Markan sections, 
 and only 30 characteristic words found also in Markan materials. 
 This fact lends a specious probabiUty to the theory of Feine, Weiss, and 
 Harnack^ that the pecuhar materials of Luke are to be traced to a single 
 source. But this theory, which seems quite opposed to the facts of 
 Luke's literary method (see pp. 8-13), also runs counter to the evidence 
 of diversities between J and the remainder of the non-Markan materials, 
 and it is equally difficult to connect J with either the Galilean or the 
 Perean source. There is, first, diversity of style and language; all the 
 evidence adduced in the discussion of the point (see pp. 56-70) bears 
 equally upon this point, and while the kinship of J with G and P is closer 
 than its relationship to Mark, its individuality remains distinct. Again, 
 the diversity of thought is also marked. The interest of J in Jesus 
 centers about his death; but G and P are concerned chiefly with his 
 teaching and saving activities, and hardly make mention of the event 
 which is central for J. In the eschatology of J the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem bulks large; but this appears nowhere in G or P with a like definite- 
 ness (even 13:34-35 reflects only Jesus' determination to abandon the 
 
 ' A. Harnack, op. cit., p. 108; Eng. trans., p. 153. 
 
 ' P. Feine, op. cit.; B. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukas Evangelimns: Die Quellen 
 der synoplische Ueberlieferung; A. Harnack, op. oil., pp. 108 f.; Eng. trans., pp. 152 f.; 
 cf. B. S. Easton, "Vocabulary of the L Source," JBL, XXIX (1910), 139-80. 
 
 170 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 101 
 
 city), and their chief interest is in the end of the age (12: 54-56; 17: 22- 
 37) and the coming of the Messiah (12:35-40; 17:24, 30). Finally, 
 from the G and P documents as they have been described above, the J 
 source is set apart by the fact that Matthew makes no use of it (see 
 p. 102), though it is hardly conceivable that, had he known it, Matthew 
 would have failed to employ some, at least, of its materials, such as the 
 ordination of Peter (22:31-32), the explicit statement that the disaster 
 to Jerusalem was due to her rejection of Jesus (19:41-44), or the ini- 
 tiation of new members into the Kingdom from the time of the cruci- 
 fixion (23:39-43). It must be concluded, therefore, that J cannot have 
 been connected with either the Galilean or the Perean document. 
 
 The relations with the infancy narratives are somewhat closer. 
 There are a number of similarities between the two, especially in forms 
 of expression. The phrase with which Jesus' arrival at Jerusalem is 
 greeted, "peace in heaven and glory in the highest" (19:38), recalls 
 the hymn with which the angels celebrated his arrival upon earth (2 : 14), 
 and the estimate of Jesus as "mighty before God and the people" 
 (24: 19) recalls the description of his youth " in favor with God and men" 
 (2:52). So, too, the J document, and especially the resurrection- 
 narratives, shares with the infancy narratives a large use of angels 
 (i:ii£f.; 1:26s.; 2:9,21; 24:4, 23), and of visions (1:8; 1:22; 24:23), 
 and the general Semitic coloring of the narrative. But there are also 
 striking diversities: the Holy Spirit, prominent in the infancy narratives 
 (1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), is not named in the J document; Jesus is 
 presented as the Davidic earthly Messiah in the infancy narratives, 
 the restorer of the nationality of Israel (1:33, 68-74; 2:11,32,38); 
 but in J this idea is strongly combatted, while the idea of divine sonship, 
 quite prominent in the infancy narratives (1:32, 35; 2:49), is merely 
 hinted at (22:70). It is not possible, then, to connect the Jerusalem 
 document with any of the other sources of the Third Gospel. 
 
 2. Relation to Mark. — The relation of the J source to the Markan 
 source has been quite largely discussed above in the demonstration of its 
 diversities from that document in the matter of order, content, and 
 language. This is sufficient to prove that there was no close literary 
 relationship between the two documents. In spite of these diversities, 
 however, it should be noted that there are extensive resemblances. 
 The history related in the Jerusalem document is essentially the same as 
 that in the closing chapters of Mark; the majority of the events are the 
 same (including even events as little necessary to the course of the narra- 
 tive as the prayer in the garden, Peter's denial, and the mocking of 
 
 171 
 
102 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 Jesus), and they are narrated in essentially the same order, although 
 there are transpositions as great as the necessary sequence of events will 
 permit. The explanation of the agreements, however, cannot be lit- 
 erary, but will be found rather in the supposition that both go back to 
 the common apostolic tradition, if not to the very events which they 
 describe. 
 
 In view of the theory of some' that the Apocalyptic Discourse of 
 Mark is composite in origin, and contains a "little apocalypse," including, 
 roughly, Mark 13:7-8, 14-20, 24-27, 30, it should be noted that the 
 Apocalyptic Discourse of J shows no signs of relationship to such a 
 document,^ and that the Markan materials interpolated in it were 
 drawn from both elements of the completed Markan version. 
 
 3. Relation to the Gospel of Matthew. — The parallels between the 
 Jerusalem source and Matthew are very few.^ There are eight instances 
 of agreement against Mark in a chance word or phrase (cf. Appendix 
 I, list VII B) ; but these are relatively rare and can easily be attributed 
 to accident. Of the more significant agreements involving an entire 
 clause or verse, there are but four close parallels. Of these. Matt. 
 23:11 is only remotely parallel to J (Luke 22:26), stands in a different 
 position, and may quite as easily have been a repetition by the first 
 evangelist of the sentiment already expressed in previous sections (Matt. 
 18:4; 20:26); Matt. 19:28 agrees with J (Luke 22:30) only in one 
 clause, and the setting is different; Matt. 26:75 ^i^^ 686, however, 
 agree quite closely with J (cf. Luke 22:62, 6^h).* In addition to these 
 verbal agreements there are a few instances where Matthew and J 
 agree against Mark in the thought, chiefly in common additions to 
 the narrative, of similar tenor but different content. These are: Jesus' 
 approbation of the plaudits of the crowd (Luke 19:39-40; cf. Matt. 
 21:14-16), Jesus' remark to Judas (Luke 22:48; cf. Matt. 26:50a), 
 his rebuke of the rash disciples (Luke 22:51; cf. Matt. 26:52-54), and 
 the account of the spectators at the cross (Luke 23:35a; cf. Matt. 
 27:36). There may be brought forward, therefore, only two, or three 
 at the most, cases of verbal agreement, and four vague agreements in 
 
 'Cf. P. W. Schmiedel, "Gospels," Enc. Bibl., II, col. 1857; R. H. Charles, 
 Eschatology (2d ed., 1913), pp. 379-84. 
 
 * It omits the verses Mark 13:24-27 and has a different version of the disaster 
 to Jerusalem, Mark 13:14-20. The P document reflects the "little apocalypse" 
 more clearly. 
 
 3 For list see Appendix I, list VII. 
 
 * Matt. 21 :44 ( = Luke 20: 18) is of doubtful textual authenticity, and the parallel 
 verse in Luke seems hardly to belong to J. 
 
 172 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 103 
 
 the general sense to prove that Matthew was acquainted with the J 
 document. This evidence is altogether too slight to demonstrate any 
 literary relationship. 
 
 On the other hand, it may be urged that Matthew would not have 
 used many of the J materials had he been acquainted with the docu- 
 ment. This is true to some extent. Matthew has chosen to follow the 
 outline of the Second Gospel in his Passion-narrative, and that fact at 
 once considerably Umits his use of the J materials, which would largely 
 duphcate the narrative he followed. Certain other of the J materials, 
 also, are not adapted to his purpose; for instance, the eschatology of 
 J is quite largely concerned with the fall of Jerusalem, while Matthew is 
 thoroughly apocalyptic and looks to the end of the age. But it would 
 seem that Matthew, if he had known them, would have been likely to 
 insert such passages as that of Jesus weeping over the city and prophesy- 
 ing her ruin as the result of rejecting him (Luke 19 : 41-44), of his exalting 
 Peter to the primacy among the disciples (Luke 22:32), the logion of 
 the Jews' wilful disbehef (Luke 22:67-68), or the acceptance by Jesus 
 of one rejected by Judaism as a citizen of the Kingdom coincident with 
 his own rejection (Luke 23:39-43). And these Matthew could easily 
 have inserted in his account: the first might have been placed just after 
 21:17 or 22, or (most of it, vss. 43-44) 23:39; the second after 26:34 
 or 41 or 43; the third after 21:27 or 26:62 or 63; and the last in the 
 parallel location, after 27:44. 
 
 It is then equally impossible either to demonstrate a literary relation- 
 ship or to account for Matthew's omission of practically all of the mate- 
 rials of J if he was acquainted with that document. It is easier to 
 explain the few significant resemblances on the ground of the oral tra- 
 dition or of early harmonistic corruption of the text. The most that 
 can be said is that Matthew may have once read the Jerusalem docu- 
 ment some time before he began his Gospel, and no longer had it in his 
 possession; but even for this there is no sufficient evidence. It is safer 
 to conclude that there was no sort of hterary relationship between the 
 First Gospel and the Jerusalem source. 
 
 4. Relation to the Fourth Gospel. — It has been frequently remarked* 
 that the Third Gospel stands closer in many ways to the Fourth Gospel 
 than do the other two. This relationship Harnack^ ascribes to depend- 
 ence upon a common source, which he, however, is inchned to beUeve 
 
 ' For example, cf. J. Wellhausen, op. cit., p. 65; A. Hamack, op. cit., Anh. IV, 
 pp. 157-60; Eng. trans., pp. 224-31. 
 
 'Op. cit., p. 108; Eng. trans., p. 152. 
 
 173 
 
104 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 oral rather than Hterary. This raises the question, however, whether the 
 materials of J stand in any peculiar relation to the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 A study of the Passion-narratives of the Third and Fourth Gospels 
 reveals at once very considerable similarities, and these similarities are 
 always in the J materials of the Third Gospel. In both, the Pharisees 
 take umbrage at the popular acclamation of Jesus upon his entry into 
 the city (Luke 19:39-40; John 12:19); ^^ both Jesus is represented as 
 not eating the Passover (Luke 22:15-16; John 13:1); in both Jesus 
 takes leave of his disciples in a farewell discourse of warning and encour- 
 agement (Luke 22:24-38; John 14-17); in each he enforces a lesson of 
 humility by his own example (Luke 22:27; John 13:1-11); in each he 
 prays in behalf of his disciples (Luke 22:32; John 17); in both Peter is 
 commissioned to a special office (Luke 22:32; John 21:15-17; cf. Luke 
 22:34; John 13:37-38); in both it is mentioned that Peter's stroke 
 severed the slave's right ear (Luke 22:50; John 18: 10); in both Peter's 
 denials seem to fall before the trial of Jesus by the high priest, and in 
 both that trial appears to fall in the morning (Luke 22:66; John 18:24, 
 27-28); in both Pilate three times proclaims Jesus' innocence (Luke 
 22:4, 14, 22; John 18:38; 19:4, 6). Most significant of all, in both the 
 resurrection appearances of Jesus are laid in Jerusalem, not in Galilee; 
 in both they take place on Easter Day; in both the disciples as well as 
 the women visit the empty tomb (Luke 24:24; John 20:2-10); both 
 insist on the corporeality of Jesus, and tell of his eating with the disciples 
 (Luke 24:41-43; John 21:12-13); ^^^ t)oth recount in similar terms his 
 appearance among the disciples on Easter evening and his commission 
 of them (Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19-23). 
 
 In particulars, also, there is a considerable resemblance between J 
 and the Fourth Gospel. Of the 63 resemblances between the Passion- 
 narrative of the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel, there are 31 in 
 which the Lukan account is the closest to the Johannine, or at least 
 shares with it some details not found in the other two Gospels. Of these 
 31 parallels 26' are in the J materials. But there are also only 27 par- 
 allels^ in which the Markan narrative or the common synoptic tradition 
 is closest or shares with John peculiar details, and only 12^ in which the 
 First Gospel shares peculiar materials. This would seem to indicate that 
 the Jerusalem document is directly or indirectly, equally with Mark, one 
 of the principal sources for the Johannine account of the Passion. 
 
 ' For list see Appendix I, list VIII A. 
 » For list see Appendix I, list VIII B. 
 3 For list see Appendix I, list VIII C. 
 
 174 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 105 
 
 That this relationship is a literary one, however, there is no sign. 
 The resemblances of Luke and John pointed out by Harnack' are largely 
 to the portions of the Gospels anterior to the Passion-narrative, and show 
 that the nearer approach of the Third Gospel to the Fourth is not simply 
 a matter of the use by the fourth evangehst of the J document. Of the 
 88 words, also, which Harnack lists as common to both Gospels, but 21 
 occur in J, and of these only 4 {aTo^aivo}, Xi/tttj, irore, (TTd8i,ov) are J 
 characteristics. No pecuHar literary connection, then, between J and 
 the Fourth Gospel is to be supposed, and the problem of their relation is 
 simply that of the Third and the Fourth Gospels. 
 
 v. CONCLUSIONS 
 
 It has now been demonstrated that the third evangelist employed a 
 distinct source of some considerable length in his account of the Passion. 
 To this conclusion two lines of evidence converge: the external evidence, 
 gained by comparison of the Lukan account with the Markan, and the 
 internal evidence of style and thought. 
 
 The comparison of the Third Gospel with the other two synoptics in ; 
 the narrative anterior to the account of the Passion (chap, i) has estab- 
 lished the fact that Luke used his major sources with a very considerable 
 degree of uniformity. A comparison of Luke with Mark in the Passion- ' 
 narrative, however (chap. 2), demonstrates that in order of sections, 
 in similarity of language, and in the introduction of new materials, 
 Luke departs so widely from his former agreement with his Markan 
 source that it cannot be supposed that he is longer dependent upon it 
 in the main. An examination of the materials in detail (chap. 3) 
 reveals a group of materials which form a connected account of the arrival 
 of Jesus in Jerusalem, of his discourses, of his arrest, trial, and death, 
 and of his resurrection and appearances to the disciples. Thus the 
 external evidence makes plain the employment by the third evangelist 
 of a source of considerable length. 
 
 The internal evidence confirms this conclusion, and the materials 
 ascribed to J on the grounds of external diversity from the Passion- 
 narrative of the Second Gospel are shown to be independent of the rest 
 of the sources of the Third Gospel (chap. 4) and to possess a unity of their 
 own. Their vocabulary is independent, possessing a number of spe- 
 cially characteristic words, having its own choice of synonyms, and using 
 but rarely words which are characteristic of the Lukan writings as a 
 whole. They show individuaUty of style, also, with characteristic forms 
 
 * Loc. cit. 
 
 175 
 
106 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 in the rhetoric and syntax and with a stronger Semitic coloring of the 
 language than has the Markan narrative. And in the matter of thought 
 and viewpoint, finally, they stand apart from the rest of the Third 
 Gospel. 
 
 The unity of the document stands unassailed. It is impossible to 
 separate it into a few divisions or to prove the individual verses of alien 
 origin. Ideas and expressions common throughout the narrative, and the 
 distribution of characteristic words and Semitic colormg, serve to uphold 
 its imity, and the absence of doublets and contradictions and the con- 
 tinuity of the narrative further reinforce it. 
 
 Finally, it has been shown that this source was a Greek document, 
 probably a translation from the Aramaic (chap. 5), that its origin is 
 probably to be fixed in the Christian community at Jerusalem, about the 
 year 45 a.d., and that its author was probably a disciple of Jesus and 
 eyewitness of the events he describes. We therefore conclude that in 
 the Passion-narrative of Luke we have preserved an early account of 
 the Passion of the Lord which furnishes valuable independent evidence 
 for the reconstruction of the details of that event. 
 
 176 
 
APPENDIX I 
 
 AGREEMENT AND DIVERGENCE OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 WITH MARK 
 
 I. Materials in Luke's Passion-narrative without parallel in Mark: Luke 
 19: (1-27), 37a, 39-44; 20:18, 34-35«, 36^- 21:18, 22, 24, 25&-26a, 28; 
 22:15-16, 270ft, 28-32, 35-38 (43-44), 48-49, SI, 53c, 6ia, 67^-68; 23:4- 
 16, 226c, 27-31 (340), 350, 39-43, 466, 48-49^, 510, S3C, 566; 24:3, 
 7-8 (106-11) (12), 13-53. 
 
 II. Materials in Luke's Passion-narrative with remote parallel in Mark 
 (remote agreement is reckoned as agreement in less than 50 per cent of 
 the language in discourse materials, or less than 40 per cent in narrative) : 
 Luke 19:28, 376, 47-48; 20:17, 20, 26, 356-360; 21:11-16, 19-20, 216, 
 23b, 34-36, 37-38; 22:3-4, 8, 14, 17, 21, 23, 24-26, 27c, 33, 39-41, 45, 
 47b, 520, 540, 55-56, 58-600, 62, 63-65, 70; 23:1-2, 18-19, 23-25, 32, 
 33b, 35^37, 50, 54-560; 24:2, 4-6, 9. 
 
 III. Materials "closely paralleled" in Mark, but closely coimected with non- 
 Markan materials: Luke 19:38; 22:18-190, 470, 50, 660; 23:20-21, 
 33« (38), 460c (47) (516-536); 24:1, loo. 
 
 IV. Omissions by Lxike of Markan materials: 
 
 A. Omissions previous to the Passion-narrative: Mark 1:5-6, 136, 
 16-20; 2:27; 3:196-30; 4:246, 26-34; 6:1-6, 18-29, 31, 346, 38; 
 6:45—8:26, 32-33; 9:9-13, 21-24, 26-29, 396, 41-50; 10:1-12, 16, 
 24, 31, 320, 35-45, 50- 
 
 B. Omissions in the Passion-narrative: Mark 11:11-14, 156-16, 19-25; 
 12:11,28-31,33-340; 13:10,20-23,27,32,34-37; 14:3-9,20(23-24), 
 26-29, 3rc, 33-34, 386-42, 44, 46, 5c>-52, 55-6i, 64; 15:10, 4-6, 8, 10, 
 16-20, 23, 25, 29, 34-36, 44-45; 16:3, 7-8. 
 
 V. Passages introduced in a position different from that given them in Mark: 
 
 A. Transpositions previous to the Passion-narrative in Markan narra- 
 tive: Luke 3:2-3, 19-20; 6:17-19; 8:19-21, 296, 420, 466, 516, 55c; 
 9:140,346,48c. 
 
 B. Transpositions in the Passion-narrative: Luke 21:37; 22:8, 17-18, 
 21-22, 23, 24-27, 390, 40, 56-62, 63-65, 66, 670, 70; 23:2, 19, 32, 
 336, 36, 376, 38, 456, 54; 24:100. 
 
 177] 107 
 
108 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 VI. Breaks, discrepancies, and doublets in the narrative apparently due 
 to a conflation of sources: 
 
 A. Interruptions of the context appear in the following passages: Luke 
 21:15-18, 20-22, 26-28; 22:32-35, 49-5ia,5o-5i&(5io-53c), 69-71; 
 23:330-34^- 
 
 B. Appended details: Luke 23:10, 32, 35, 38, 54; 24:100. 
 
 C. Redundancies and discrepancies: Luke 21:66, cf. 19:446; 21:16, 
 cf. vs. 18; 22:526, cf. vs. 53c; 23:4, cf. vs. 36; 23:23-24, cf. vs. 25; 
 24:9, cf. vs. 106. 
 
 VII. Agreements of the non-Markan materials of Luke's Passion-narrative 
 with Matthew: 
 
 A. Agreements of entire thought or verse: Luke (20:18); 22:26, 
 306, 62, 646. 
 
 B. Agreements in single word or brief phrase: Luke 22:18 (ciTro), 
 21 (x«p), 42 (vXi^v), 45 (irpos Toil's fJuaOtird^), 67 (eiirov tJ/aiv), 70 (tov 
 ©eov); 24:9 (aTTi/yyciXav), 47 (Travra to. eOvrj). 
 
 C. General agreements of the narratives: Luke 19:39-40 (cf. Matt. 
 21:14-16); 22:48(cf.^Matt. 26:500), 51 (cf. Matt. 26:52-54); 23:35 
 (cf. Matt. 27:36). 
 
 VIII. Agreements of the Passion-narratives in the Synoptic Gospels and the 
 Fourth Gospel: 
 
 A. Agreements of the Passion-narratives in which the Lukan version 
 is closest to the Johannine: Luke 19:38 (John 12:136); 21:12 
 (John 15:20-21); 22:3 (John 13:2, 27), 23 (John 13:22), 25-27 
 (John 13:3-5, 12-15), 33-34 (John 13:37-38), 39 (John 18:1-2), 
 50 Qohn 18:106), 55-60 (John 18:15-18, 25-26), 67-68 (John 
 18:21); 23:1 (John 18:28), 2 (John 18:29-32), 4 (John 18:38), 20-23 
 (John 19:4-7), 33 (John 19:18), 46 (John 19:30), 53<; (John 19:41), 
 54 (John 19:42); 24:1-2 (John 20:1), 3-5 (John 20:11-13), 8-10 
 (John 20:2), 22-23 (John 20:2, 11-13), 24 (John 20:3-10), 36-40 
 (John 20:19-20, 26-28), 48-49 (John 15:26-27; 20:22). 
 
 B. Agreements of the Passion-narratives in which the Markan version 
 is closest to the Johannine: 
 
 Luke 19:35 (Mark 11:7; John 12:14-16), 45-46 (Mark 11:15-17; 
 John 2:14-16); — (Mark 11:24; John 15:7); 21:15 (Mark 13:11; 
 John 14:26), 16 (Mark 13:12; John 16:2), 17 (Mark 13:13; John 
 15:21), — (Mark 13:23; John 16:1, 4); 22:21 (Mark 14:18; John 
 13:21), 21 (Mark 14:20; John 13:18, 26), — (Mark 14:28; John 16: 
 
 178 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 109 
 
 i6 22), 40-42 (Mark 14:32-36; John 12:27), 42 (Mark 14:36; 
 John i8:iift), 47 (Mark 14:43; John 18:3), 50 (Mark 14:47; 
 John 18: loa), 53 (Mark 14:49; John 18: 20), - (Mark 14: 58; John 
 2:19, 21), 63-65 (Mark 14:65; John 18:22); 23:3 (Mark 15- 2- 
 John 18:33-37), II (Mark 15:16-20; John 19:2-3), 18-19 (Mark 
 15:6-11; John 18:39-40), -(Mark 15:15; John 19:1), 33 (Mark 
 15:22; John 19:17), 34 (Mark 15:24; John 19:23-24), 36 
 (Mark 15:36; John i9:29),49 (Mark 15:40; John 19:25), 54 (Mark 
 15:42; John 19:31); 24:10 (Mark 16:1; John 20:1). 
 
 C. Agreements of the Passion-narratives in which the Matthaean 
 version is closest to the Johannine: Luke 19:36 (Matt. 21:8; John 
 i2:i2-i3a),-(Matt. 21:4-5; John 12:15-16); 22:2 (Matt. 26:3-5- 
 John 11:47-48), -(Matt. 26:31; John 16:32), 51 (Matt. 26:52; 
 John i8:iia), 54 (Matt. 26:57; John 18:12, 24); 23:25 (Matt. 27- 
 26; John 19:16), 38 (Matt. 27:37; John 19:19), 50-52 (Matt. 
 17:57-59; John 19:38), 53 (Matt. 27:60; John 19:41), — (Matt. 
 28:9-10; John2o:i4-i8); — (Matt. 28:18; John 16:15); 24:47-48 
 (Matt. 28:18-20; John 20:21). 
 
 179 
 
APPENDIX II 
 
 VOCABULARY OF THE JERUSALEM DOCUMENT 
 
 Words marked with an asterisk (*) occur nowhere else in the Lukan writings. 
 Words marked with a dagger (f) are especially characteristic of J, occurring at 
 least twice in that source and not more often in the rest of Luke or in Acts. 
 
 ayadSs 
 
 ayyeXos 
 
 ayop&^o} 
 *aypvTvko) 
 
 ayo} 
 
 a8eK<f)6s 
 *adpoi^(a 
 
 alveu) 
 
 atpo) 
 
 alreonai, 
 *alTrina 
 fatTios 
 
 alZiV 
 
 aKo\ov6&t) 
 
 aKoixa 
 
 6.\r}6€ia 
 
 aXXa 
 
 a\\r}\wv 
 
 aXXoj 
 
 anaprla 
 
 afiaprcSKSs 
 
 *afnre\os 
 avafiaivo} 
 avayKfj 
 dvaipeo) 
 
 avaKpa^o) 
 avaKpivo) 
 
 [180 
 
 \avairknTroi 
 
 dTToXucj 
 
 avaTiiTTO) 
 
 dxopeo) 
 
 *6.va(xeio} 
 
 *aTopla 
 
 avaaraffLS 
 
 a-KotTTriua 
 
 avrjp 
 
 avoarkWo) 
 
 dvdl<TT7]IJ,L 
 
 dir6o'roXos 
 
 avOpcairos 
 
 6.iro<TTpe<txa 
 
 aviarrjfii 
 
 *hiroypvx'^ 
 
 *av6r]TOs 
 
 a-KTOS 
 
 avofios 
 
 apa 
 
 avTelirov 
 
 *&pl<TTepos 
 
 aVTL 
 
 apvkofiai 
 
 *avTifia\\(t) 
 
 apros 
 
 avTiKeip,at 
 
 apxtepevs 
 
 ci^tos 
 
 &pX(a 
 
 dxa77eXXw 
 
 apxuv 
 
 airinyo} 
 
 fopco/itt 
 
 airas 
 
 darpdTrrw 
 
 dxepxo/iai 
 
 iarpov 
 
 dxexoj 
 
 arevl^o) 
 
 tdxi(rT€&) 
 
 arep 
 
 ttTTO 
 
 aroiros 
 
 6.-Ko^alv(a (*"happen") 
 
 avXri 
 
 aTodvijaKCJ 
 
 *av\i^Ofiat 
 
 airoKplvofiai 
 
 avTOi 
 
 *a'iroKv\ici) 
 
 a4>a.ipko 
 
 CLTroKan^avo) 
 
 *a4>avTOs 
 
 dxoXXu/zi 
 
 a<f>e(n,s 
 
 d7roXo7eo/iai 
 
 6.<f>'n}p,i 
 
 *aTro\vTp(i3<ns 
 
 &XP^ 
 
 110 
 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 111 
 
 t/SaXXdvTtoj' 
 /SdXXw 
 /3opcco 
 fiaaiXda 
 /SactXeiis 
 
 *^Ov\€VTr}S 
 
 fiovvds 
 
 *fipa8vs 
 
 fipaxvs 
 
 7a/xeft) 
 yaiii^ofiai, 
 *yanL<rKonai 
 yap 
 yk 
 
 yevrjfxa 
 yevv&xa 
 
 yv 
 
 ylvofiai 
 
 yivoiaKO) 
 
 yvosarSs 
 
 ybvv 
 
 ypannareiK 
 
 ypa(f>r] 
 
 yp&tfxa 
 
 yvvri 
 
 8k 
 
 Sec (Sew) 
 
 5e^ios 
 
 Sepco 
 
 dkxofiai 
 
 dko 
 
 diaKoveo) 
 
 eiTOV, kpu 
 
 8La\oyLcrn6s 
 
 eipriVT] 
 
 8tap.evu) 
 
 CIS 
 
 Stajueptfco 
 
 els 
 
 Siapolyoj 
 
 ct(rd7aj 
 
 8la(TTpk<i>oi 
 
 dffkpxonat 
 
 fSiaTt^e/iai 
 
 be 
 
 8i8aaKa\os 
 
 eKaTOVT&pxv^ 
 
 8i8aaK(j} 
 
 CK5lK7J<riS 
 
 8l8(ani 
 
 kK€i 
 
 StepfjLijvevoi} 
 
 eKeivos 
 
 tSitaTTjjui 
 
 *kKKpkixap.ai, 
 
 (*="be parted") 
 
 fcKXeiiro) 
 
 StiVxvpfrojLtai 
 
 e/cXe/CT6s 
 
 di/caios 
 
 kKtlVKTripl^Oi 
 
 *8iKai(t}s 
 
 *c«7rvea) 
 
 8i.6ti 
 
 kKTeivo) 
 
 8lU)K0i 
 
 kK4>eby(a 
 
 8oKk(a 
 
 *kKX(^pko} 
 
 86^a 
 
 feXaia 
 
 80^6.^0} 
 
 feXTrifw 
 
 8ov\os 
 
 fc/u/SXcTrw 
 
 8vvanai 
 
 tc/iiraifoj 
 
 8{)vaiiLS 
 
 ifiTrpoadev 
 
 8waT6s 
 
 ^€H<f>O^OS 
 
 8vo 
 
 kv 
 
 8ci)8eKa 
 
 kvavrlov 
 
 
 t?v5cKa 
 
 k&v 
 
 kv8v()} 
 
 eavTov 
 
 kpd&8e 
 
 k6.(i} 
 Uyylt(o 
 
 kvToKii 
 
 kvUTTtOV 
 
 eyeipo) 
 
 kyo), kfiov, fxov 
 *k8a<t>l^cj 
 Wvos 
 
 k^dyoi 
 *k^aiTkofiai 
 k^axo<TTk\\<a 
 
 Wos 
 
 k^kpxofiaL 
 
 el 
 
 k^rjykonai. 
 
 elSov 
 
 *i^T]KOVTa 
 
 eifxl 
 
 k^lanjUL 
 
 181 
 
112. 
 
 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 k^ovdev&D 
 
 k<t>l<TTr]iJ.L 
 
 *i(Tayye\os 
 
 e^ovala 
 
 *k<t>vi8ios 
 
 icTTrjut 
 
 *e^ovaia^o} 
 
 *ixepa 
 
 ix^vs 
 
 e^ 
 
 kxBpos 
 
 
 kirayyeXla 
 
 exw 
 
 KoBevBoi 
 
 eTaipu) 
 
 ews 
 
 Kadrifiai 
 
 *k'}rei,<TepxofJiat, 
 
 
 Kadi^o) 
 
 kirkpxonai 
 
 to-oi 
 
 KadoiS 
 
 kTepwraoj 
 
 ^V^ko) 
 
 Kai 
 
 kirl 
 
 
 Kaipos 
 
 CTri/SaXXoj 
 
 a 
 
 Kaiw 
 
 kirLyLv6)(TK<j} 
 
 riykonai 
 
 ^iKOKovpyos 
 
 kTidiSunt, 
 
 V8v 
 
 KoKkca 
 
 kiri^vfiko 
 
 ^KCO 
 
 KoXvTTQ} 
 
 Hiridvu'ia 
 
 ^\ios 
 
 KapSia 
 
 kTrUeifiai 
 
 1^/xecs 
 
 Kara 
 
 *eTlKp'LV<j) 
 
 vnkpa 
 
 */caTd/3a(ris 
 
 kinaKOTrrj 
 
 ijavxa^o} 
 
 KaraKXivo) 
 
 €TrL<TTp&f)(a 
 
 VXOS 
 
 KaraKoKovdko) 
 
 *e7ri(rxi'w 
 
 
 KaTa^LOO) 
 
 kiriTlfiOLO) 
 
 doKaaaa 
 
 KaTTjyopkca 
 
 eTc<t>(i)vka 
 
 davaros 
 
 t»caTi(rx^ 
 
 *kTn(f>6}aK(i} 
 
 davfia^ii) 
 
 K€tp.at 
 
 ipyov 
 
 Oeaofxai, 
 
 Ke<f>a\rj 
 
 *epr]H(oaLS 
 
 dkXrjua 
 
 Krjpvaao) 
 
 ipxonai 
 
 dkXo} 
 
 K\al(t} 
 
 epcordw 
 
 deos 
 
 /cXdo'ts 
 
 feo-eijs 
 
 deoipko) 
 
 fcXdw 
 
 ioB'ua 
 
 *6ecopia 
 
 IkXivo) 
 
 *t6 kabyitvov 
 
 dprjvko) 
 
 KoiXLa 
 
 iairkpa 
 
 Op'^ 
 
 Koifxaofiai 
 
 erepos 
 
 dpovos 
 
 KOTTTOpai 
 
 €TL 
 
 dvyarrjp 
 
 /cpdfo) 
 
 iTOifia^o} 
 
 
 *KpavLov 
 
 tTOLflOS 
 
 la.op.ai 
 
 Kparko} 
 
 *ev€pyeT7js 
 
 i8ov 
 
 Kpepavvvfii 
 
 €v\oyk(i> 
 
 Upov 
 
 *Kpeird\r] 
 
 €Vpl<TKO) 
 
 iKavSs 
 
 f/cpi/itt 
 
 eVTOVOiS 
 
 ln&Tiov 
 
 Kplvo} 
 
 ievxapiarko} 
 
 Iva 
 
 KpVTTO) 
 
 182 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 113 
 
 KTOLOfXai 
 
 t)Ui/i;'i7crK0/iai 
 
 0& 
 
 kvkKooj 
 
 t^tz'Tj/ietoi' 
 
 obbk 
 
 *Kupiei»w 
 
 /iOJ'OJ 
 
 ohbds, ovdels 
 
 KVpLOS 
 
 (xvpov 
 
 ovv 
 
 iccoXuw 
 
 
 *ou7rco 
 
 KOlflT] 
 
 V€Kp6s 
 
 obpavbs 
 
 
 vedoTepos 
 
 oh 
 
 XaXeco 
 
 v6nos 
 
 ofne 
 
 "Kafi^avo} 
 
 *vovs 
 
 oCtos 
 
 Xa/i7rp6s 
 
 vvv 
 
 oiJrcoj 
 
 *Xa^eyr6s 
 
 vv^ 
 
 ohxi- 
 
 Xa6s 
 
 ^r]p6s 
 
 b<i)daKp.bs 
 
 "Kkyu 
 
 ^v\ov 
 
 6xXos 
 
 \idos 
 
 
 
 *Uav 
 
 6, 1), TO 
 
 *7ra7i$ 
 
 Xo7tfo/iai 
 
 6d6s 
 
 fTraiSeuw 
 
 X670S 
 
 618 a 
 
 (*= "scourge") 
 
 Xot7r6s 
 
 oUla 
 
 TaibiffKif 
 
 *X('7r77 
 
 oiKovntvij (oUko)) 
 
 *iralM 
 
 *Xiirp6o)uai 
 
 6X0S 
 
 ir6i\t,v 
 
 
 „ t^^^^ 
 
 *irajU7rXrj0eI 
 
 fiadrjTTjs 
 
 dfiolus 
 
 *'jr6.VTod€v 
 
 /xafcdpios 
 
 ovofxa 
 
 •n-apajStdfo/iat 
 
 liojcpodev 
 
 ^bVTUS 
 
 7rapa7(j'0^ai 
 
 fxapritpiov 
 
 *3^os 
 
 *napd5€io-os 
 
 fl&pTVS 
 
 dirraaia 
 
 wapadLdcouL 
 
 fxaaros 
 
 *OTrT6i 
 
 *JIapaaKevr{ 
 
 t/idxaipa 
 
 6ir(as 
 
 TrapaTidrjui 
 
 jLl€7aS, fi€l^O)V 
 
 bpow 
 
 *7rape/i)3dXX&) 
 
 *6 /xeifcoj/ 
 
 bpyi) 
 
 *7rapoiK«o 
 
 *fikev 
 
 *6pdpl^o} 
 
 ttSs 
 
 fikWoj 
 
 *6pdpiv6s 
 
 Trdtrxa 
 
 ixkv 
 
 6pos 
 
 Trdo'X'J 
 
 txkv(j3 
 
 ^s, i 6 
 
 TraTdacco 
 
 ixkpiuva 
 
 *6(TT&}V 
 
 irarecd 
 
 likpos 
 
 0(TTIS 
 
 irariip 
 
 /ictros 
 
 orav 
 
 fTreipacr/xos 
 
 fierA 
 
 6t€ 
 
 TTCpl 
 
 /Lierdvoia 
 
 OTL 
 
 *X€ptd7rTW 
 
 M« 
 
 oh 
 
 TrepijSdXXo) 
 
 183 
 
114 
 
 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 *TrepiKa'KvTrTO} 
 
 TT po4>r]Tev(ji 
 
 (Twexw 
 
 *irepLKVK\6co 
 
 Trpo(j)r]Tr]s 
 
 ^avv^tjTko) 
 
 irepnraTko) 
 
 irpuTOs 
 
 (TVVLTJUl 
 
 fTT^pa 
 
 "fiTTokonai 
 
 *<TvvKa9l^cii 
 
 *TlKpG3S 
 
 irvp 
 
 awKoKko} 
 
 irln-KKruxi 
 
 TTwXca) 
 
 *awKaTaTid€fxai 
 
 irlvoo 
 
 
 *awox'fl 
 
 iriiTTU} 
 
 prina 
 
 *(Tvv'7rapaylvofiai 
 
 ■Kiartvui 
 
 
 cvvTopevonai 
 
 Tiaris 
 
 aa^^OLTOv 
 
 crajfo) 
 
 irXrjOos 
 
 *ak\o% 
 
 awfxa 
 
 irX-hv 
 
 aap^ 
 
 Tap&aaoj 
 
 
 
 TrXijpdoi 
 
 aeavTOv 
 
 rk 
 
 7rv60/ia(t= "ghost") 
 
 aeXrjvri 
 
 9 C 
 
 T€KVOP 
 
 xoieco 
 
 aijudov 
 
 T€\ko 
 
 TTOLOS 
 
 tt^Xk 
 
 aijuepov 
 
 tr^Xoj 
 
 TToKis 
 
 (tTtos 
 
 TtS, tI 
 
 xopete/xai 
 
 (ntoTrdo) 
 
 tIs, tI 
 
 *iroppb}T€pov 
 
 aKdros 
 
 tSitos 
 
 *TOTk 
 
 *<TKvdpO}T6s 
 
 t6t€ 
 
 ^TTOT-flpiOV 
 
 cos 
 
 trpAircfa 
 
 Trpi^is 
 •TrpAffcco 
 
 ao<}>la 
 
 *0rTd5lOS 
 
 (TTdo-is 
 
 Tpk<j>0} 
 
 ^Tplrov 
 
 irpea^vrkptov 
 
 t<rTaup6co 
 
 Tp'lTOS 
 
 ^ 
 
 ffT€Lpos (*i7 areipa) 
 
 Tvyxo.v(a 
 
 wpo 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 TVITTW 
 
 irpokpxonai 
 
 crrrjdos 
 
 
 *'7rpo/ieX€raco 
 
 crrTjptfco 
 
 Hypos 
 
 irpSs 
 
 crSfia (*="blade") 
 
 vlos 
 
 irpoadoKia 
 
 (TTp&revna 
 
 if/teis 
 
 Trpoaepxoixai 
 
 (TTpaTLWTrjS 
 
 VTrapxo} 
 
 TTpoaevx'n 
 
 *<TTpaT6Te8ov 
 
 ilTTO 
 
 TrpoaehxotiOii 
 
 <rTpk(f>(ji) 
 
 {>Tr68r]na 
 
 7rpo(rexw 
 
 ai), aoxj 
 
 *i)T0lXlHV7]<TK(j) 
 
 *Tr poaTOLeofiai 
 
 avWan^avco 
 
 iiironovri 
 
 'jrpoa(f)kpo} 
 
 avufialvo) 
 
 VTO(TTpk(i>0) 
 
 Trpoa(l>(i}vko) 
 
 ahv 
 
 iarepeo} 
 
 TrpdauTTOV 
 
 cvvayo) 
 
 inJ/l(TT0S 
 
 irpovTT&pX'^ 
 
 avvkpxo/xai 
 184 
 
 C^^oj 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 115 
 
 \pvxv 
 & 
 
 &pa 
 &s 
 
 wcrel 
 *6}tIov 
 
 <hfi't' 
 
 <f>o)vko} 
 
 4>iKku 
 <f>l\t]Ha 
 *<f>i\ovHKia 
 
 <f)UVT] 
 <f)US 
 
 <f>i\os 
 *(f>6Pr]dpov 
 
 Xaipw 
 
 Xapa 
 
 *Xapa^ 
 
 1[4>6vos 
 
 Xdp 
 
 <f>6pos 
 
 XP('<rT6s 
 
 (l)V\aKT] 
 
 Xpovos 
 
 <t>v\-fi 
 
 X^po. 
 
 185 
 
APPENDIX III 
 
 THE TEXT OF THE JERUSALEM DOCUMENT 
 
 Italics are used to indicate materials which J must have contained, but 
 which are here probably not in the language of J. 
 
 Brackets indicate materials but doubtfully assigned to J. 
 
 The text of the American Revised Version is used by permission of 
 Thomas Nelson and Sons. 
 
 Column I: materials peculiar to Luke (Class I). 
 
 Column II: materials paralleled in Mark in a different location. 
 
 Column III: materials remotely paralleled in Mark (Class II) in a 
 similar location. 
 
 Column IV: materials closely paralleled in Mark (Class III) in a 
 similar location. 
 
 § I. The Triumphal Entry 
 Luke 19:28, 37-44, 47-48 
 
 D 
 
 28 And when he had thus 
 spoken, he went on before, 
 going up to Jerusalem.^ 
 
 37 And as he was now 
 drawing nigh, even at the 
 descent of the mount of 
 Olives, the whole multi- 
 tude of the disciples began 
 to rejoice and praise God 
 with a loud voice for all the 
 mighty works which they 
 had seen: 
 
 38 saying, Blessed is the 
 King that cometh in the 
 name of the Lord: peace 
 in heaven, and glory in the 
 highest. 
 
 39 And some of the Phari- 
 sees from the multitude said 
 unto him, Teacher, rebuke 
 thy disciples. 40 And he 
 answered and said, I tell 
 you that, if these shall hold 
 their peace, the stones will 
 cry out. 
 
 41 And when he drew 
 nigh, he saw the city and 
 
 wept over it, 42 saying. If 
 thou hadst known in this 
 day, even thou, the things 
 which belong unto peace! 
 but now they are hid from 
 thine eyes. 
 
 43 For the days shall come 
 upon thee, when thine 
 enemies shall cast up a 
 bank about thee, and com- 
 pass thee round, and keep 
 thee in on every side, 44 
 and shall dash thee to the 
 ground, and thy children 
 within thee; and they shall 
 not leave in thee one stone 
 upon another; because thou 
 knewest not the time of thy 
 visitation.^ 
 
 47 And he was teaching 
 daily in the temple. But 
 the chief priests and the 
 scribes and the principal 
 men of the people sought to 
 destroy him: 48 and they 
 could not find what they 
 might do; for the people all 
 hung upon him, listening. 
 
 > Luke 19:29-36 follows. 
 
 2 Luke 19:45-46: 45 And he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold, 46 say- 
 ing unto them. It is written, And my house shall be a house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of 
 robbers. 
 
 116 
 
 [186 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 117 
 
 § 2. A Fragment of Discourse 
 
 Luke 20:34-36 
 
 34 And Jesus said unto 
 
 them, The sons of this 
 
 world marry, and are given 
 
 in marriage: 35 but they 
 
 that are accounted worthy 
 
 to attain to that world, 
 
 and the resurrection from 
 the dead, neither marry, 
 nor are given in marriage: 
 
 B 
 
 36 for neither can they die 
 any more: for they are 
 equal unto the angels; 
 
 and are sons of God, being 
 sons of the resurrection. 
 
 § 3. The Apocalyptic Discourse 
 Luke 21:10, 116, r2a, 13-15, 18-20, 21b, 22, 23&-26a, 28, 34-38 
 
 D 
 
 10 Then said he unto them, 
 Nation shall rise against 
 nation, and kingdom 
 against kingdom;' 
 
 and there shall be ter- 
 rors and great signs from 
 heaven. 12 But before all 
 these things, they shall lay 
 their hands on you, and 
 shall persecute you,^ 
 
 13 It shall turn out unto 
 you for a testimony. 
 
 14 Settle it therefore in 
 your hearts, not to medi- 
 tate beforehand how to 
 answer: 
 
 15 fop I will give you a 
 mouth and wisdom, which 
 all your adversaries shall ' 
 not be able to withstand 
 or to gainsay .3 
 
 18 And not a hair of your 
 head shall perish. 
 
 19 In your patience ye 
 shall win your souls. 
 
 20 But when ye see Jeru- 
 salem compassed with 
 armies, then know that her 
 desolation is at hand;'' 
 
 H 
 
 and let them that are in the 
 midst of her depart out; 
 and let not them that are 
 in the country enter therein. 
 
 22 For these are days of 
 vengeance, that all things 
 which are written may be 
 fulfilled ;s for there shall be 
 great distress upon the 
 land, and wrath unto this 
 people. 24 And they shall 
 fall by the edge of the 
 sword, and shall be led cap- 
 tive into all the nations; 
 and Jerusalem shall be 
 trodden down of the Gen- 
 tiles, imtil the times of the 
 Gentiles be fulfilled. 
 
 I I 25 And there shall be signs 
 I I in sun and moon and stars; 
 and upon the earth distress 
 of nations, in perplexity for 
 the roaring of the sea and 
 the billows; 26 men faint- 
 ing for fear, and for expec- 
 tation of the things which 
 are coming on the world:' 
 
 28 But when these things 
 begin to come to pass, look 
 up, and lift up your heads; 
 
 » Luke 21 : iia; and there shall be great earthquakes, and in divers places famines and pestilences. 
 
 2 Luke 21: 1 2ft.- delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and 
 governors for my name's sake. 
 
 'Luke 21:16-17: i6 But ye shall be delivered up even by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, 
 and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. 17 And ye shall be hated of all men 
 for my name's sake. 
 
 <Luke 2i:2i<i.- Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains; 
 
 s Luke 21 : 23a; Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! 
 
 • Luke 21 : 266-27: for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the 
 Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 
 
 187 
 
118 
 
 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 § 3. The Apocalytic Biscovuse— Continued 
 
 because your redemption 
 draweth nigh.' 
 34 But take heed to your- 
 selves, lest haply your 
 hearts be overcharged with 
 surfeiting, and drunken- 
 ness, and cares of this life, 
 and that day come on you 
 suddenly as a snare: 35 for 
 so shall it come upon all 
 them that dwell on the face 
 of all the earth. 36 But 
 watch ye at every season, 
 
 making supplication, that 
 ye may prevail to escape 
 all these things that shall 
 come to pass, and to stand 
 before the Son of man. 
 
 ^y And every day he was 
 teaching in the temple; and 
 every night he went out, and 
 lodged in the mount that is 
 called Olivet. ^8 And all 
 the people came early in the 
 morning to him in the 
 temple, to hear him. 
 
 D 
 
 § 4. The Last Supper 
 Luke 22:8, 14-19^, 21, 23 
 
 8 *And he sent Peter and 
 John, saying, Go and make 
 ready for us [the passover] 
 that we may eat.^ 
 14 And when the hour was 
 come, he sat down, and the 
 apostles with him. 
 IS And he said unto them, 
 With desire I have desired 
 to eat this passover with 
 you before I suffer: 16 fori 
 say unto you, I shall not eat 
 it, until it be fulfilled in the 
 kingdom of God. 
 17 And he received a cup, 
 and when he had given 
 thanks, he said, Take this, 
 and divide it among your- 
 selves: 
 
 18 for I say unto you, I 
 shall not drink from hence- 
 forth of the fruit of the 
 vine, until the kingdom of 
 God shall come. 
 
 19 And he took bread, and 
 when he had given thanks, 
 he brake it, and gave to 
 them, saying, This is my 
 body.'* 
 
 21 But behold, the hand 
 of him that betrayeth me 
 is with me on the table.' 
 
 23 And they began to ques- 
 tion among themselves, which 
 of them it was that should do 
 this thing. 
 
 » Luke 21:29-33: 29 And he spake to them a parable: Behold the fig tree, and all the trees: 30 when 
 they now shoot forth, ye see it and know of your own selves that the summer is now nigh. 31 Even so 
 ye also, when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh. 32 Verily 
 I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished. 33 Heaven and 
 earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 
 
 2 Luke 22: 1-7 precede. 
 
 'Luke 22:9-13 follow. 
 
 • Luke 22: 19^-20: which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 And the cup in like 
 manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out 
 for you. 
 
 5 Luke 22:22: For the Son of man indeed goeth, as it hath been determined: but woe unto that 
 man through whom he is betrayed! 
 
 188 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 119 
 
 § 5. The Farewell Discourse 
 
 Luke 22:24-33, 35-39 
 
 24 And there arose also a 
 contention among them, 
 which of them was accounted 
 to be greatest. 25 And he 
 said unto them, The kings 
 of the Gentiles have lord- 
 ship over them; and they 
 that have authority over 
 them are called Benefac- 
 tors. 26 But ye shall not 
 be so: but he that is the 
 greater among you, let him 
 become as the younger; 
 and he that is chief, as he 
 that doth serve. 
 
 27 For which is greater, he 
 that sitteth at meat, or he 
 that serveth ? is not he that 
 sitteth at meat ? but I am 
 in the toidst of you as he 
 that serveth. 
 
 28 But ye are they that 
 have continued with me in 
 my temptations; 29 and I 
 appoint unto you a king- 
 dom, even as my Father 
 appointed unto me, 30 that 
 ye may eat and drink at my 
 table in my kingdom; and 
 ye shall sit on thrones judg- 
 ing the twelve tribes of 
 Israel. 
 
 31 Simon, Simon, behold, 
 Satan asked to have you, 
 that he might sift you as 
 
 D 
 
 wheat: 32 but I made 
 
 supplication for thee, that 
 
 thy faith fail not; and do 
 
 thou, when once thou hast 
 
 turned again, establish thy 
 
 brethren. 
 
 33 And he said unto him, 
 Lord, with thee I am ready 
 to go both to prison and to 
 death.' 
 
 35 And he said unto them. 
 When I sent you forth with- 
 out purse, and wallet, and 
 shoes, lacked ye anything ? 
 And they said. Nothing. 
 
 36 And he said unto them, 
 But now, he that hath a 
 purse, let him take it, and 
 likewise a wallet; and he 
 that hath none, let him 
 sell his cloak, and buy a 
 sword. 37 For I say unto 
 you, that this which is 
 written must be fulfilled in 
 me. And he was reckoned 
 with transgressors: for that 
 which concemeth me hath 
 fulfilment. 38 And they 
 said. Lord, behold, here are 
 two swords. And he said 
 unto them. It is enough. 
 
 39 And he came out, and 
 went, as his custom was, 
 unto the mount of Olives; 
 and the disciples also fol- 
 lowed him. 
 
 § 6. The Agony A>fD Betrayal of Jesus 
 Luke 22:40-41, 426-520, 53-540 
 
 I 40 And when he was at the 
 I place, he said unto them, 
 
 Pray that ye enter not into 
 
 temptation. 
 
 41 And he was parted 
 
 from them about a stone's 
 
 cast; and he kneeled down 
 
 and prayed,^ 
 
 not my will, but thine, be 
 
 done. 
 
 43 [And there appeared 
 unto him an angel from 
 heaven, strengthening him. 
 
 44 And being in an agony 
 he prayed more earnestly; 
 and his sweat became as it 
 were great drops of blood 
 falling down upon the 
 ground.] 
 
 1 Luke 22:34: And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, until thou shalt 
 thrice deny that thou knowest me. 
 
 s Luke 22:420; 42 saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless 
 
 189 
 
120 
 
 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 § 6. The Agony and Betrayal of Jesus — Contimied 
 
 D 
 
 45 And when he rose up 
 from his prayer, he came 
 unto the disciples, and 
 found them sleeping for 
 sorrow, 46 and said unto 
 them, Why sleep ye? 
 
 rise and pray, that ye enter 
 not into temptation. 
 47 While he yet spake, be- 
 hold, a muhittide, and he 
 that was called Jtidas, one of 
 the twelve, went before them; 
 and he drew near unto Jesus 
 to kiss him. 
 
 48 But Jesus said unto him, 
 Judas, betrayest thou the 
 Son of man with a kiss ? 
 
 49 And when they that 
 were about him saw what 
 would follow, they said, 
 Lord, shall we smite with 
 the sword ? 
 
 50 And a certain one of 
 them smote the serv-^ant of 
 the high priest, and struck 
 off his right ear. 
 
 51 But Jesus answered and 
 said, Suffer ye them thus 
 far. And he touched his 
 ear, and healed him. 
 
 52 And Jesus said unto 
 the chief priests,'^ 
 
 53 When I was daily with 
 you in the temple, ye 
 stretched not forth your 
 hands against me: 
 
 but this is your hour, and 
 the power of darkness. 
 
 54 And they seized him, 
 and led him away, and 
 brought him into the high 
 priest's house.' 
 
 § 7. Peter's Denials 
 Luke 22:55-60^, 6iab, 62 
 
 55 And when they had 
 kindled a fire in the midst 
 of the court, and had sat 
 down together, Peter sat in 
 the midst of them. 
 
 56 And a certain maid see- 
 ing him as he sat in the light 
 of the fire, and looking sted- 
 fastly upon him, said, This 
 man also was with him. 
 
 57 But he denied, saying, 
 Woman, I know him not. 
 
 58 And after a little while 
 another saw him, and said, 
 Thou also art one of them. 
 
 D 
 
 But Peter said, Man, I am 
 not. 
 
 59 And after the space of 
 about one hour another 
 confidently aflSrmed, say- 
 ing. Of a truth this man 
 also was with him; for he 
 is a Galilaean. 60 But 
 Peter said, Man, I know 
 not what thou sayest.J 
 
 61 And the Lord turned, 
 and looked upon Peter. 
 
 I And Peter remembered the 
 I word of the Lord,< 
 
 62 And he went out, and 
 wept bitterly. 
 
 'Luke 22:$2hc: and captains of the temple, and elders, that were come against him, Are ye come 
 out, as against a robber, with swords and staves? 
 ' Luke 22 : s^b: But Peter followed afar off. 
 
 ' Luke 22 :6o!>; And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. 
 * Luke 22 : 61c: how that he said unto him, Before the cock crow this day thou shalt deny me thrice. 
 
 190 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 121 
 
 § 8. Jesus Examined by the Prosecutors 
 Luke 22:63-660, 67-68, 70; 23:1 
 
 63 And the men that held 
 Jesus mocked him, and beat 
 him. 64 And they blind- 
 folded him, and asked him, 
 saying, Prophesy: who is he 
 that struck thee ? 65 And 
 many other things spake 
 they against him, revriling 
 him. 
 
 66 And as soon as U was 
 day, the assembly of the 
 elders of ike people was 
 gathered together, both chief 
 priests and scribes;^ 
 
 D 
 
 I saying, 67 If thou art the 
 
 I Christ, tell us. 
 But he said unto them, If 
 I tell you, ye will not believe: 
 68 and if I ask yon, ye will 
 not answer. ' 
 
 70 And they all said. Art 
 thou then the Son of God ? 
 And he said unto them, Ye 
 say that I am.^ 
 
 I And the whole company 
 of them rose up, and 
 brought him before Pilate. 
 
 § 9. The Trial of Jesus 
 Luke 23:2-16, i8-22a, 22C-25 
 
 2 And they began to accuse 
 him, saying, We found this 
 man perverting our nation, 
 and forbidding to give 
 tribute to Caesar, and say- 
 ing that he himself is Christ 
 a king. 
 
 \:^ And Pilate asked him, 
 
 saying, Art thou the King of 
 
 \thc Jews ? A nd he answered 
 
 I him and said, Thou sayest. 
 
 4 And Pilate said imto the 
 chief priests and the multi- 
 tudes, I find no fault in this 
 man. 
 
 5 But the}' were the more 
 urgent, saying, He stirreth 
 up the people, teaching 
 throughout all Judaea, and 
 beginning from Galilee even 
 unto this place. 6 But 
 when Pilate heard it, he 
 asked whether the man 
 were a Galilaean. 7 And 
 when he knew that he was 
 of Herod's jurisdiction, he 
 sent him unto Herod, who 
 himself also was at Jeru- 
 salem in these days. 
 
 D 
 
 8 Now when Herod saw 
 Jesus, he was exceeding 
 glad: for he was of a long 
 time desirous to see him, 
 because he had heard con- 
 cerning him; and he hoped 
 to see some miracle done by 
 him. 9 And he questioned 
 him in many words; but he 
 answered him nothing. 
 
 10 And the chief priests 
 and the scribes stood, vehe- 
 mently accusing him. 
 
 1 1 And Herod with his sol- 
 diers set him at nought, and 
 mocked him, and arraying 
 him in gorgeous apparel 
 sent him back to Pilate. 
 
 12 And Herod and Pilate be- 
 came friends with each other 
 that very day: for before they 
 were at enmity between them- 
 selves. 
 
 13 And Pilate called together 
 the chief priests and the rulers 
 and the people, 14 and said 
 imto them, Ye brought unto 
 
 > Luke 22 : 666; and they led him away into their council, 
 
 ^Luke 22:60: But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power 
 of God. 
 
 'Luke 22:71: And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard 
 from his own mouth. 
 
 191 
 
122 
 
 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 § 9. The Trial of Jesus — Continued 
 
 H 
 
 me this man, as one that per- 
 verteth the people: and be- 
 hold, I, having examined him 
 before you, found no fault in 
 this man touching those things 
 whereof ye accuse him: 15 no, 
 nor yet Herod: for he sent 
 him back unto us; and behold, 
 nothing worthy of death hath 
 been done by him. 
 
 I I 16 I will therefore chastise 
 I I him, and release him. 
 18 But they cried out all to- 
 gether, saying. Away, with 
 this man, 
 
 and release imto us Barab- 
 bas: — 19 one who for a 
 certain insurrection made 
 in the city, and for murder, 
 was cast into prison. 
 20 And Pilate spake unto 
 them again, desiring to 
 
 release Jesus; 21 but they 
 shouted, saying, Crucify, 
 crucify him. 
 
 22 And he said unto them 
 the third time.' I have 
 found no cause of death in 
 him: I will therefore chas- 
 tise him and release him. 
 
 23 But they were urgent 
 with loud voices, asking 
 that he might be crucified. 
 And their voices prevailed. 
 
 24 And Pilate gave sen- 
 tence that what they asked 
 for should be done. 25 And 
 he released him that for in- 
 surrection and murder had 
 been cast into prison, whom 
 they asked for; but Jesus 
 he delivered up to their 
 will." 
 
 § 10. A Prophecy against Jerusalem 
 Luke 23:27-31 
 
 27 And there followed him 
 a great multitude of the 
 people, and of women who 
 bewailed and lamented him. 
 
 28 But Jesus turning unto 
 them said. Daughters of 
 Jerusalem, weep not for me, 
 but weep for yourselves, 
 and for your children. 
 
 29 For behold, the days 
 are coming, in which they 
 
 shall say. Blessed are the 
 barren, and the wombs that 
 never bare, and the breasts 
 that never gave suck. 
 30 Then shall they begin 
 to say to the mountains. 
 Fall on us; and to the hills, 
 
 Cover us. 31 For if they 
 do these things in the green 
 tree, what shall be done in 
 the dry ? 
 
 § II. The Crucifixion 
 Luke 23:32-340, 35-37, 39-43,46-490 
 
 32 And there were also 
 two others, malefactors, led 
 with him to be put to 
 death. 
 
 2,z And when they came 
 unto the place which is 
 called The skull, there they C 
 crucified him, 
 
 and the malefactors, one 
 on the right hand and the 
 other on the left. 
 
 34 [And Jesus said. Father, 
 forgive them; for they 
 know not what they do.]^ 
 
 35 And the people stood 
 beholding. 
 
 • Luke 23 : 226; Why, what evil hath this man done ? 
 
 2 Luke 23:26: And when they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon of Gyrene, coming 
 from the country, and laid on him the cross, to bear it after Jesus. 
 
 ' Luke 23:34ft: And parting his garments among them, they cast lots. 
 
 192 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 123 
 
 § II. The Crucifixion— Co«//«««/ 
 
 D 
 
 And the rulers also scoffed 
 at him, saying, He saved 
 others; let him save him- 
 self, if this is the Christ of 
 God, his chosen. 
 
 36 And the soldiers also 
 mocked him, coming to 
 him, offering him vinegar, 
 
 37 and saying. If thou art 
 the King of the Jews, save 
 thyself.' 
 
 39 And one of the male- 
 factors that were hanged 
 railed on him, 
 saying, Art not thou the 
 Christ ? save thyself and 
 us. 40 But the other 
 answered, and rebuking 
 him said, Dost thou not 
 even fear God, seeing thou 
 art in the same condemna- 
 tion? 41 And we indeed 
 justly; for we receive the 
 due reward of our deeds: 
 but this man hath done 
 
 H 
 
 nothing amiss. 42 And he 
 said Jesus, remember me 
 when thou comest in thy 
 kingdom. 43 And he said 
 unto him, Verily I say unto 
 thee. To-day shalt thou 
 be with me in Paradise.' 
 46 And Jesus, crying with 
 a loud voice, said. Father, 
 into thy hands I commend 
 my spirit : 
 
 I and having said this, 
 I gave up the ghost. 
 47 And when the centu- 
 rion saw what was done he 
 glorified God, saying. Cer- 
 tainly this was a righteous 
 man. 
 
 48 And all the multitudes 
 that came together to this 
 sight, when they beheld the 
 things that were done, re- 
 turned smiting their breasts. 
 
 49 And all his acquaint- 
 ance,^ stood afar off, seeing 
 these things. 
 
 he 
 
 § 12. The Burial of Jesus 
 Luke 23:50-510, 52-560 
 
 I j 50 And behold, a 
 I I named Joseph, 
 who was a councillor, a 
 good and righteous man 
 51 (he had not consented to 
 their counsel and deed),'' 
 
 52 this man went to Pilate, 
 and asked for the body of 
 Jesus. 53 A7id he took it 
 down, and wrapped it in a 
 linen cloth, and laid him in 
 a tomb that was hewn in 
 stone, 
 
 D 
 
 where never man had yet 
 lain. 
 
 54 And it was the day of the 
 Preparation, and the sab- 
 bath drew on. 
 
 ^i, And the women, who had 
 conie with him out of Galilee, 
 followed after and beheld the 
 tomb, and how his body was 
 laid. 56 And they returned, 
 and prepared spices and 
 ointments. 
 
 > Luke 23:38: And there was also a superscription over him, This is the King of the Jews. 
 2 Luke 23:44-45: 44 And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole 
 land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun's light failing: and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. 
 ' Luke 23:406: and the women that followed with him from Galilee. 
 * Luke 23 : 516.- a man of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God. 
 
 193 
 
124 
 
 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 § 13. The Empty Tomb 
 Luke 23:566/ 24:1-5, 6b-ioa 
 
 And on the sabbath they 
 rested according to the com- 
 mandment. 
 
 I But on the first day of the 
 week, at early dawn, they 
 came unto the tomb, 
 bringing the spices which 
 they had prepared. 
 
 2 And they found the stone 
 rolled away from the tomb. 
 
 3 And they entered in, and 
 found not the body [of the 
 Lord Jesus]. 
 
 4 And it came to pass, while 
 they were perplexed there- 
 about, behold, two men 
 stood by them in dazzling 
 apparel : 5 and as they were 
 affrighted and bowed down 
 their faces to the earth. 
 
 D 
 
 they said unto them. Why 
 seek ye the living among 
 the dead ?' 
 remember how he spake 
 unto you when he was yet 
 in Galilee, 7 saying that the 
 Son of man must be de- 
 livered up into the hands 
 of sinful men, and be cruci- 
 fied, and [the third day Jrise 
 again. 8 And they remem- 
 bered his words, 
 
 9 and returned from the 
 tomb, and told all these 
 things to the eleven, and 
 to all the rest. 
 
 10 Now they were Mary 
 Magdalene, and Joanna, 
 and Mary the mother of 
 James.* 
 
 § 14. Jesus Appears to Two Disciples 
 
 13 And behold, two of 
 them were going that very 
 day to a village named Em- 
 maus, which was threescore 
 furlongs from Jerusalem. 
 
 14 And they communed 
 with each other of all these 
 things which had happened. 
 
 15 And it came to pass, 
 while they communed and 
 questioned together, that 
 Jesus himself drew near, and 
 went with them. 16 But 
 their eyes were holden that 
 they should not know him. 
 
 17 And he said unto them, 
 What communications are 
 these that ye have one with 
 another, as ye walk ? And 
 they stood still, looking sad. 
 
 18 And one of them, named 
 Cleopas, answering said 
 unto him, Dost thou alone 
 sojourn in Jerusalem and 
 
 Luke 24:13-35 
 
 D 
 
 not know the things which 
 are come to pass there in 
 these days ? 19 And he said 
 unto them. What things? 
 And they said unto him, 
 
 The things concerning Jesus 
 the Nazarene, who was a 
 prophet mighty in deed and 
 word before God and all the 
 people: 20 and how the 
 chief priests and our rulers 
 delivered him up to be con- 
 demned to death, and cruci- 
 fied him. 
 
 21 But we hoped that it 
 was he who should redeem 
 Israel. 
 
 [Yea and besides all this, it 
 is now the third day since 
 these things came to pass.] 
 
 22 Moreover certain women 
 of our company amazed us, 
 having been early at the 
 
 ' Luke 24:6a; [He is not here, but is risen:] 
 
 2 Luke 24:10^-12: and the other women with them told these things unto the apostles. 11 And 
 these words appeared in their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved them. 12 [But Peter arose, and 
 ran unto the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths by themselves; and he departed 
 to his home, wondering at that which was come to pass.] 
 
 194 
 
THE SOURCES OF LUKE's PASSION-NARRATIVE 
 
 125 
 
 H 
 
 tomb; 23 and when they 
 found not his body, they 
 came, saying, that they had 
 also seen a vision of angels, 
 who said that he was alive. 
 
 24 And certain of them that 
 were with us went to the 
 tomb, and found it even so 
 as the women had said : but 
 him they saw not. 
 
 25 And he said unto them, 
 O foolish men, and slow of 
 heart to believe in all that 
 the prophets have spoken! 
 
 26 Behooved it not the 
 Christ to suffer these things, 
 and to enter into his glory ? 
 
 27 And beginning from 
 Moses and from all the 
 prophets, he interpreted 
 to them in all the scriptures 
 the things concerning him- 
 self. 
 
 28 And they drew nigh unto 
 the village, whither they 
 were going: and he made as 
 though he would go further. 
 
 29 And they constrained 
 him, saying, Abide with us; 
 for it is toward evening. 
 
 and the day is now far 
 spent. And he went in to 
 abide with them. 
 
 30 And it came to pass, 
 when he had sat down with 
 them to meat, he took the 
 bread and blessed; and 
 breaking it he gave to them. 
 
 31 And their eyes were 
 Ojjened and they knew him; 
 and he vanished out of their 
 sight. 32 And they said 
 one to another, Was not 
 our heart burning within us, 
 while he spake to us in the 
 way, while he opened to us 
 the scriptures ? 
 
 33 And they rose up that 
 very hour, and returned 
 to Jerusalem, and found the 
 eleven gathered together, 
 and them that were with 
 them, 34 saying. The Lord 
 is risen indeed, and hath ap- 
 peared to Simon. 35 And 
 they rehearsed the things 
 that happened in the way, 
 and how he was known of 
 them in the breaking of the 
 bread. 
 
 § 15. Jesus Commissions the Disciples 
 
 36 And as they spake these 
 things, he himself stood in ' 
 the midst of them, [and 
 saith unto them. Peace be 
 unto you]. 37 But they 
 were terrified and affrighted, 
 and supposed that they be- 
 held a spirit. 
 
 38 And he said imto them. 
 Why are ye troubled ? and 
 wherefore do questionings 
 arise in your heart ? 39 See 
 my hands and my feet, 
 that it is I myself: handle 
 me, and see; for a spirit 
 hath not flesh and bones, 
 as ye behold me having. 
 
 40 [And when he had said 
 this, he showed them his 
 hands and his feet.] 
 
 41 And while they still 
 disbelieved for joy, and 
 wondered, he said unto 
 
 Luke 24:36-49 
 
 them. Have ye here any- 
 thing to eat? 42 And 
 they gave him a piece of a 
 broiled fish. 43 And he 
 took it, and ate before 
 them. 
 
 44 And he said unto them, 
 These are my words which 
 I spake unto you, while I 
 was yet with you, that all 
 things must needs be ful- 
 filled, which are written in 
 the law of Moses, and the 
 prophets, and the psalms, 
 concerning me. 45 Then 
 opened he their mind, that 
 they might understand the 
 scriptures; 
 
 46 and he said unto them. 
 Thus it is wiitten, that the 
 Christ should suffer, and 
 rise again from the dead 
 [the third day]; 
 
 195 
 
126 
 
 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 
 
 § 15. Jesus Commissions the Disciples — Continued 
 
 47 and that repentance and 
 remission of sins should be 
 preached in his name unto 
 all the nations, beginning 
 from Jerusalem. 
 
 48 Ye are witnesses of these 
 
 things. 
 
 49 And behold, I send forth 
 the promise of my Father 
 upon you: but tarry ye 
 in the city, until ye be 
 clothed with power from 
 on high. 
 
 § 16. The Ascension 
 Luke 24:50-53 
 
 50 And he led them out 
 imtil they were over against 
 Bethany: and he lifted up 
 his hands, and blessed 
 them. 51 And it came 
 to pass, while he blessed 
 them, he parted from them, 
 
 [and was carried up into 
 heaven]. 
 
 52 And they [worshiped 
 him, and] returned to Jeru- 
 salem with great joy: 53 
 and were continually in the 
 temple, blessing God. 
 
 A Non-Maiocan Logion Probably Not Drawn from J 
 Luke 2o:i6fr-i8 
 
 And when they heard it, 
 they said, God forbid. 
 17 But he looked upon 
 them, and said, What then 
 is this that is written, 
 
 I I I The stone which 
 I I [builders rejected, 
 
 the 
 
 The same was made the 
 head of the corner ? 
 
 18 Every one that falleth on 
 that stone shall be broken 
 to pieces; but on whomso- 
 ever it shall fall, it will 
 scatter him as dust. 
 
 196 
 
INDEX 
 
 Addition of incidents, 23, 107 
 Apocalyptic Discourse, 26, 35 ff., 102; 
 
 language of, 82 
 Aramaic: colors language of J, 67 f., 
 
 80 ff.; not language of J, 86 
 Authorship of J, 90 ff . 
 
 Christology of J, 71 f., 94 f.; death of 
 Jesus, 47 ff., 72, 9s; humanity of 
 Jesus, 71, 94; Jesus as teacher, 71; 
 messiahship of Jesus, 71 f., 95, 99; the 
 Resurrection, 51 ff., 72 
 
 Conflation, 17, 19, 25 f., 108 
 
 Date of J document, 98 
 
 Disciples, 74, 78; persecution of, 73, 93, 
 
 98 
 Doublets, 14, 17 f., 20, 84 
 
 Ecclesiastical situation, 93 f. 
 Eschatology of J, 72 f., 95 f. 
 Eucharist, 39 f., 94 
 
 Farewell discourse, 41 
 
 Galilean source: order, 9, 13 f.; peculiar 
 materials, 12 f.; style, 10, 15; view- 
 point, 10 f . 
 
 Gentiles: disapproval of, 73, 74, 90; 
 overthrow of, 37 
 
 Gospels, SjTioptic: theory of sources of, 
 13; relation of sources to J, 100 f. 
 
 Herod Agrippa I, 92, 93 
 Herod Antipas, 45, 93 
 Historicity of J document, 99 f. 
 
 Jerusalem: interest in, 91; Jesus' 
 ministry in, 33 f., 74, 78; overthrow of, 
 26, 33 f-, 73, 78, 91, 96 ff., loi 
 
 Jerusalem Document: authorship of, 
 90 ff.; contents, 28 ff., 31 ff., 54, 87 ff., 
 116 ff.; date of, 98; definite order in, 
 27 f., 78 f.; 87; historicity of, 99 f.; 
 independence of, 70, 74 f.; literary 
 form of, 27 ff., 70, 85 f.; purpose of, 
 98 f.; style of, 62 ff., 80 ff.; unity of, 
 
 197] 
 
 77 ff.; viewpoint of, 70 ff., 74, 78, 
 
 90 f., 92 ff., 98 f.; vocabulary of, 
 
 56 ff., 79 ff., iioff. 
 Jews: regarded as friendly, 73 f., 90, 91, 
 
 92; rulers of, 44 f., 74, 90, 92 
 John, gospel, relation to J, 29, 42, 103 f., 
 
 108 
 
 Language of J document : characteristics, 
 56 ff., 62, 79, 80 ff., iioff.; synon3rms 
 in, 59 ff., 61; vocabulary, iioff. 
 
 Luke, evangelist: literary habits, 6ff., 
 19 f., 89; purpose, s, 99; viewpoint, 
 
 74 f. 
 
 Luke, gospel: characteristic language, 
 62, 66 f.; editorial additions in, 15 f., 
 87; peculiar materials of, 11 ff. 
 
 Luke 19:1-27, part of P source, 32 f., 
 
 75 f- 
 
 Mark, gospel: relation to J, loi f.; 
 
 use by Luke, language, 7 f ., 21 f., 55; 
 
 order and connection, 6, 107 
 Matthew, gospel: relation to J, 101, 102, 
 
 108; sources used by Luke, 8 ff., 13 ff. 
 
 Omitted incidents, 23 f., 107 
 
 Particularism, 73 f., 90 f . 
 Passion-Narrative of Luke: agreements 
 
 with Mark in, 21 ff., 107; conflations 
 
 in, 25 f., 108; limits of, 2, 21, 32 f. 
 Perean source: peculiar materials, 13; 
 
 style, 10, 15, 76; viewpoint, 10 f., 75 f. 
 Persecutions, 36 f., 41, 73, 92 f., 98 
 Peter: denial of Jesus, 44; imprisonment 
 
 of, 92, 93; primacy of, 41, 74, 78, 94, 
 
 lOI 
 
 Political situation, 93 
 
 Principles for discriminating J materials, 
 
 32 
 Principles of literary procedure, Luke's, 
 
 19 f. 
 
 Q document: diversities within, 9ff.; 
 not a unity, 9 
 
 127 
 
128 INDEX 
 
 Resurrection appearances, 51 ff., 72, 75, Textual corruption, 3, 103 
 
 91 Theology of J source, 70 
 
 Transpositions, 24 f., 27, 78, 107 
 
 Sacraments, 94 Trial of Jesus, 42, 44 
 Salvation, idea of, 73 
 
 Style of J document: Aramaisms, 67 ff., Unity of J document, 77 ff.; of Q docu- 
 
 80 ff.; descriptive details, 62 f., 64; ment, 9 
 
 grouping, 64; not Luke's, 66 ff.; 
 
 repetiiion, 63; syntax, 64 f. World-view of J document, 70 ff. 
 
 198 
 
i 
 
 Pamphlet 
 Binder 
 
 "^aylord Bros., Inc. 
 
 Makers 
 Syracuse, N. Y 
 
 W JAN 21, 190a 
 
BS2595.4 .P46 
 The sources of Luke's 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 '"" Illlllllllllllllllllll 
 
 1 1012 00034 4194