•Y^LIEc¥MI¥IEISSinrY« DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

[^

The Sources of Luke's
Passion-Narrative

The Sources of Luke's
Passion- Narrative

By
ALFRED MORRIS FERRY

>&,

&VITY SC^S

d*

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

COFYEIGHT 1030 Bv
The University of Chicago

All Rights Reserved

Published January 1920

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 or 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 Lukan Sources, 100; to Mark, 101; 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  110
Appendix III
Text of the Jerusalem Source  116
vii

INTRODUCTION
In the stream of the literary 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 literary 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 little or nothing to tell concerning the
narrative of the Passion.
Since the days of Wilke,1 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,2 or else they have been treated
singly, as by Holtzmann3 and others, and their full import collectively
1 C. G. Wilke, Der UrenangeUst (1838), pp. 482 f. "Faktum ist dass bis n. 34 [Mark
10:13-16 and parallels], kein Stuck vorkommt, das von den Referenten in vollig
gleicher Form und mit denselben Geschichtsmomenten gegeben ware  Von
n. 50 bis 57 [Mark 14: 1 to end and parallels] aber gibt Lukas fast durchgangig eigen-
tiimliche Darstellungen. "
'Ibid., p. 540: "In der letzten Geschichte Jesu, worin Lukas am meisten von
den Nebenberichten abweicht, zeigt an dem, was er mit den Nebenzahlern zugleich
erwahnt, 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 mtisse, so wie es sich
nicht verbirgt, dass er nach schriftstellerischen Zwecken und nach seiner Weise
abgeandert. "
3H. 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 eigentumliche Relationen modificirt, dass man die Erzahlung des Lucas
sogar schon in ganz andere AbteUungen zerlegen und aus anderen Quellen ableiten
wollte, 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 EvangeHum Lucae (1904).
71] 1

I 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 Hawkins1
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 Burkitt2 even ventures the suggestion
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: 1) 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 Tertullian 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-
1 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. Feine, Eine vor-
kanonische Ueberlieferung des Lukas (1891), passim.
2 F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission, p. 134.
72

THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 3
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 actustomed 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 Kpoo-ir^5ou, 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 slight 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 evangelist 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
relies 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 evangelist 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 Ukely 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 literary procedure.
75] 5

O HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
u. 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.1 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 sections2 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
1 Interesting corroborative evidence, external to the documents, might be drawn
from Harnack'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; H Tim. 4:11.
2 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 5 139),
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.1 Fourthly, in his use of the language of his source, the third evangelist
is apparently quite free. Hawkins' figures2 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.
1 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 evangelist 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:iwith Luke 5:17; Mark 3:1 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 fieri, ravra here in Luke is not less ambigu
ous than Mark's tt&\iv.) 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: 1 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 ff., 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), 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 119 words of conclusion,
42, or 35 per cent, are paralleled in Mark.1
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., 1
pp. 198 f.; and Stanton, op. cti., II, 278 ff. 78

THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 9
it may be that its application has not been sufficiently 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, until
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 earlier 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.1
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 7:1-10; Matt. 8:5-13).
Discourse on John the Baptist (Luke 7 : 18-35; Matt, n : 2-19).
In these eight sections, comprising in Luke 71 verses at the least,
there are but 4 verses (Luke 6:3i = 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;2 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.
1 Cf. Harnack, TheSayings of Jesus, pp. 172 f.; Spriicke undReden Jesu, pp. 121 f.
'CI. Mark 4:2i=Matt. 5:15; Mark 9:43~48=Matt. 5=29-30, 18:8-9; Mark
g: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;1 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 Burton2
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 different. 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
Tids toO GeoO, the latter generally as Tibs tov kvdp&Kov; and the phrases
BamXela tov 0eoO and avrr/ ij yevta 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
1 Cf. Harnack on the order of Q, Sayings of Jesus, pp. 178-79 (Spriicke und
Reden Jesu, pp. 125-26). 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 definite 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 tke Synoptic Problem (Chicago, 1904), p. 43.
' 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
by Professor E. D. Burton,1 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.2
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,3 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. tit.; also "Some Phases of the Synoptic Problem," Journal
of Biblical Literature, XXXI (1912), Part II, pp. 95-113.
2 1 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.
s Burkitt, Tke Gospel History and Its Transmission, pp. 130 ff .
4 Stanton, op. tit., II, 227 f.; Weizsacker, Untersuckungen iiber die evangelische
Gesckichte (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.1 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 dealing 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 peculiar 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 conformed 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.2 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 "Galilean" section (chaps. 3-8) are homogeneous with those
1 Bernhard Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukas-evangeliums (1907), pp. 19s ff.; Die
Quellen der synopHscken UeberUeferung, Text. u. Untersuch., Band 32, Heft 3 (1908),
pp. 169 ff.; P. Feine, Eine vorkanonische UeberUeferung 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

A
THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 13
which, in this portion, he shares with the First Gospel. The literary 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.1 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 unified document;2 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 " Galilean 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
1 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-parajlel materials, and, like them, place the emphasis in Christian life upon
love and righteousness, and avoid eschatology and anti-Pharisaic utterances. Stanton
(op. tit., 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, 1912). 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 peculiar 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 evangeUst
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
evangeUst we cannot be sufficiently sure to draw any deductions which
might be used as evidence in our study; 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, foHowed 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 dupUcate 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 caU of the first disciples (5:1-11), and the anointing of Jesus (7:36-
50), there is no reason for beUeving 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 dupUcates is not quite
so clear, since that document seems to have been inserted just as it
stood. Indeed, Luke does occasionaUy 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 evfl exorcism (n: 14-23; cf. Mark 3: 22-30) 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 evangeUst 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 foUows until he can connect the reference to Jesus' return to
Capernaum (4:31) with the similar reference in Mark (Mark 1:21).
The Ust of Jesus' disciples and the description of the general character
of his ministry the evangeUst 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: 1) was sufficient nexus.
Fifthly, as far as it can be determined, Luke shows an even greater
fideUty 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-i5 = Matt. 13:1-23),
where, of Luke's 231 words, 127 are paraUeled in Matthew, or 54.9
per cent; but the Lesser Interpolation includes also the narrative of
the Healing 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 foUowed the language of his "Perean," and particularly of his
"GaUlean," sources rather more closely than he did that of his Markan
document. V. EDITORIAL ADDITIONS BY THE EVANGELIST
A further point in the third evangeUst's Uterary 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
simUar 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 source (cf.
with Matt. 4:23-25; Mark 1:39, 28, 32, 340; 3:76-8). Of thenine
passages connected with Markan materials where the editorial hand of
the evangeUst 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 aU, 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 finaUy occurs in Mark
7:1 (omitted by Luke), the specification of a wide range of territory
(cf . Luke 3 : 1-2 53:3; Acts 2 : 9-1 1; 9:31; 11:19, etc-) an(i tne connection
of bbvatus and lao-dai (cf. Luke 6 : 19) are specificaUy 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 (6:66/ 15:40-41;
16:1), contains further details and is not satisfied by these paraUels
(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 Uttle.
In the remaining instances, however, the case appears different at
first glance. Luke 4: 14-15 is largely paralleled in three verses of Mark:
the paraUel verse (Mark 1 : 14) and Mark 1 : 28 and 1 : 39. But these two
latter paraUels are of the most conventional materials, and the former
of them (Luke 4:146) is quite as well suggested by an earUer phrase
in Luke : vacav r^v treplx^pov in Luke y.3. Since this section, standing
between two G narratives (Luke 4:3-13, 16-30), is Ukely on that account
to have come from G, and since it contains also elements not satisfied
by Mark (kv rfj Svv&nu tov Hvevnaros, do^ 6/j.evos bird irAvTUv), 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 "Kkyovra Sri <ri> d 6 Tids
tov Oeov and the verb kmTinq,v, which have a verbal paraUel in Mark
3 : 11-12 two chapters later. Yet the phrase, in its conventional ecclesi-
86

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, reaUy a part of the section to which this verse forms a
conclusion), and the coincidence of iirLTtn<j.v may easUy 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 evangeUst's Uterary 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 aU the minutiae of their content; and second,
the presence of a single doublet, especiaUy 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 jthe Uterary method of the evangeUst. (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 : 2 1 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
While the production of so-called "doublets" cannot have been any
intentional part of the Uterary 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 caUed "veiled doublets," where the accounts of
an incident, while each without a duplicate in its own Gospel, seem not
to have been drawn from the same source (for example, cf . Luke 5 : 1-1 1
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, Hawkins1 lists 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 . 1 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 Usted by Stanton,2 most of them true doublets in Matthew, of 281
IHorae Syn.2 (1909), pp. 99-106. 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.
2 Op. tit., II, 54-60. These are: Luke 11:9, cf. Mark 11:24; Luke 11:15,
cf. Mark 3:22; Luke 11:16, cf. Mark8:n; Luke 11:17-18, cf. Mark 3:23-26;
Luke 11:21-22, cf.Mark3:27; Luken:29, cf.Mark8:i2; Lukei2:io, 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 in 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 essentiaUy 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 paraUel 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 n : 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. VH. 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. la making use of his sources the evangelist endeavored, as far as
possible, to preserve the original order of their materials.
2. Where he found dupUcate accounts of the same incident he pre- ¦
f erred 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 especiaUy 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 generaUy 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-Markan 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 paraUels — so numerous are the transpositions, expansions,
or abbreviations of the minor details. We come, therefore, to a study
of the Uterary 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 paraUelism to Mark is fairly close;
(3) Luke 22:14 — 24:11, where the narratives are paraUel, but the
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); or I,7I8 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 aU. 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 whoUy or in part common to both, and
91] 21

22

HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

152 more are paraUeled 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 aU. This smaUer 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 aU. 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
Uterary 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 climax 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

A* Bt Ct

Discourse

B

Introductions

Conclusions

Luke 4:31, etc. .
Luke 3:3—18:43.
Luke 19:28 — 22:13
Luke 21:1-36. . . .
Luke22:i4 — 24:11

1,339

563

42.0

1,861 589
1,472

904 205
475

48.5 34-832.3

120
I,io3 881
403 222

90
810519 180113

75-o73-4
58.9
44-7 50.9

146

154
183

36 79
54

24.6
5i-3 29-5

119

147
no

42 57
33

35-6
3^830.0

* A refers to words in Luke, t B refers to common words. % 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 paraUeled 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, 33 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 paraUels in Mark,
totaling, at a minimum count, at least 127I verses.1 Of these twenty-
eight additions only three (Luke 19:1-27, 23:4-15, and 24:13-53),
totaUng 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, nine additions, 17 verses; in Luke 22:14 — 24:11, seventeen
additions, 34! verses, including the 12 verses of the block Luke 23:4-15.
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; 9:5!— 18:14), no one
of which contains less than n 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), totaUng 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 sUght additions, 8 verses; in the 176 verses
which include the Mark-parallel materials of the Passion-narrative there
are (the larger blocks already included) fifteen additions, 39J 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 omissions2 of 87 verses in aU; thirteen of these, 37 verses, are in
the section Luke 19:28 — 22:13, ana^ twenty-two omissions, 47 verses,
1 For list see Appendix I, list I.
2 For list see Appendix I, list IV B. 93

24 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
in the section Luke 22 : 14 — 24: n. 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,1 totaling 98! verses. Thus in the case of
omissions also, while the amount of omitted material is proportionately
about the same, the blocks of material are smaUer 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 Uterary method. It has
already been noticed (principle 1, 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 3:3*— 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 evangeUst'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, 466; 9:140) 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 himseff; in the cases which seem to
b« such he is in reality foUowing one of his sources.
But the Passion-narrative appears to contradict this rule flatly;
for here transpositions are numerous and important.3 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
1 For list see Appendix I, list IV A.
2 For list see Appendix I, list V A.
J 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 earUer, and the mocking, of Jesus by the police (Luke 22:63-65)
and the account of Peter's denials (Luke 22 : 56-62) are mutuaUy 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 23119, 32, 38, 54; 24:10a) are mere
descriptive details, and two more are really repetitions (Luke 22 140, 70).
This leaves seven smaU 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).
AU these occur in the later portion of the Passion-narrative, Luke
22 : 14 — 24: n ; but there is also one transposition in the earUer portion,
the editorial summary in Luke 21:37 (cf. Mark 11:19).
Whfle, then, the number of transpositions in the Passion-narrative
(19) is not disproportionate to that in the earUer 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 Uterary method.
IV. INTERWEAVING AND CONFLATION
The fourth principle of Luke's Uterary method (see p. 19), that the
evangeUst endeavors to interweave his materials as closely as possible
about any nexus of common data, will apply with pecuUar 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, especiaUy 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 Uterary 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 evangeUst'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.1 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)5 and (6) cases where it is merely added as an afterthought
(cf. Luke 24:10a), a phenomenon which Luke has consistently eUmi-
nated in his dealing with his Markan source (see p. 17, and cf. Luke
8:420,556; 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 foUows
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. 216-22) harks back to the city; the proper antecedent of
airrjs and avrftv 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 tq 'lovSala, but 'ItpowrdKfn, 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 Ught sufficient data to
permit us to form a preUminary estimate of the nature of the sources
1 For list see Appendix I, list VI. 96

THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 27
from which the evangeUst drew the non-Markan materials of his Passion-
narrative. Such an estimate will have to be more fully developed,
tested, perhaps revised, when the f uU 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 evangeUst drew these mate
rials from oral tradition. Surely there must have been many tales
concerning the closing days of Jesus' Ufe, above aU, of that supreme
tragedy about which centered the faith of the church; and what more
Ukely than that the evangeUst, 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 paraUeled 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 evangeUst with the
avowed purpose of the historian, who is usuaUy 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 possibiUties, then, Ue 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 evangeUst the particulars in which the
second evangelist had been in error.
This latter possibiUty 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 appUcation 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 aU, 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 beUever ; that Joseph of Arimathaea had reaUy
defended Jesus; that the tomb was a new one; and finally that the >
Resurrection appearances were not in Galilee but in and about Jerusa
lem. These sixteen points are aU 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 expUcit corrections of the Markan version.
But taken together their extent is so considerable as to constitute prac-
ticaUy a running commentary upon the whole of the Passion-story.
But the Christians of the apostoUc age were not commentators, scho
lastics, least of all where their own infant records were concerned. Nor
is it at aU likely that Luke would have brought his copy of Mark— ra
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, UnguisticaUy,
which has been pointed out, and for the limitation of this change to
the Passion-story. And, finaUy, as far as can be determined, the trans
positions of any serious import in earUer 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 evangeUst 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

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 Apocalyptic 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. n : 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
evangeUst 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
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 outUne. 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 evangeUst 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 deaUng 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 evangeUst possessed a second
narrative — possibly a cycle of oral tradition, but more probably a written
document — with a fixed form and unity of its own. This source, since
it deals exclusively with scenes of Jesus' Ufe laid in Jerusalem, wiU 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 pecuUar 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:1
Class I. Materials pecuUar to Luke.
Class II. Materials in which there is but a sUght agreement with
the Markan paraUel.
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 habituaUy 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
1 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 jparables) 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 wiU be:
1) 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 appUcation 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 appUcation to them, and to the remaining
materials of the section, of the principles of discrimination.
It must be noted, also, that the J source, equaUy with the Markan,
is Uable 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 evangeUst. 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 faUs
into four sections, the first (Luke 19:1-27) containing no Mark-paraUel
materials, the second (Luke 19:28 — 22:13) possessing considerable
agreement with Mark, the third (Luke 22:14 — 24:11) but remotely
paraUel 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 wiU be observed that the non-Markan materials are
inserted mainly in two blocks (cf. principle 3, p. 19), the fir,st (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, pecuUar 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 Ukely, 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
20-36 are plainly drawn from the Markan source; but vs. 28 contains a
detail which is not expUcit 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 difficult. 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, impUes 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 usuaUy accepted on the basis of Mark
and John.1 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 handUng, 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 kidioyal 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, 35a, 366) and three more of Class
II (20, 26, 356-36a). Verses 20, 26 are connected with one another by
the use in each of the phrase kvCKafikaBai avrov \6yov (jriiixaTos), which
occurs nowhere else in the New Testament (kiri\anP&,vea9ai. 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 weU upon the last J passage (Luke 1 9 : 47-48) . The motive in the
two verses is different — in vs. 20 to compromise Jesus in the eyes of the
1 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
things 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, m spite 01 ^e peculiar word <t>6pos (a mere improvement
of the Latinism kjjj'o-os), of which Bernhard Weiss1 makes much, are
certainly derived simply from Mark.
So also is the problem of the Woman with Seven Husbands (vss-
27-33) j Du* 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 ceUbacy); 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 beUeve
that Luke was making use, in this very passage, not of one documentary
source, but of two. We may with reason, therefore, seek stiU other J
materials in the discourse.
1 Bernhard Weiss, Die Quellen des LukasevangeUums, pp. 213 ff.
105

36 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
As pecuUar materials (Class I) may be Usted vss. 18, 24, 256-260,
28; and as remote paraUels (Class II) vss. n-16, 19-20, 216-22, 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.
1. The persecution of the disciples (Luke 21 : 12-19). — In this section
we may start from the single pecuUar verse (18). This is here usually
interpreted of spiritual salvation;1 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 UteraUy 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
Usted in Class II. It contains, however, no ideas (save the addition of
tf>iKuv) not present in the Markan paraUel, 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 paraUel;
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 sUght degree of redundancy. But vs. 13 is an
entire recasting of the Markan phrase and probably (principles 1, 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 (reKos), this verse appears to refer rather to an imminent
and a physical salvation, thus connecting with vs. 18 (principles 1, 3, 5).
1 Cf., for example, Plummer, St. Luke, p. 480; B. Weiss, op. tit., p. 273; Well-
hausen, op. tit., 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 aQd perhaps 126c.
2. The destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24). — The first part
of this paragraph has already been discussed (p. 26) and vss. 20, 216
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. 21a, 23a.
3. The overthrow of the Gentiles (Luke 21 : 25-28). — In this paragraph
there are two verses (256-260, 28) of Class I materials and two verses
(25a, 266-27) of Class III. Between vss. 27 and 28 there is an obvious
contradiction;1 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.
256-260. Verse 25a also, although of Class III, presents but a sUght
sinularity to the Markan parallel, and may weU have belonged to J;
but vs. 266 agrees with Matthew (Matt. 24:29c) and is probably, like
the verse that foUOws 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 paraUel 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 impUed in Mark;
most important of these are avadrmaanv in vs. 5, the addition 6 Kaipos
fryyiKev .... friri&w olvt&v in vs. 8, and the latter clause of vs. n. The
first of these, however, is not significant, and the second may easUy be an
editorial reminiscence from the general fund of apocalyptic. The fact,
further, that a doublet of vs. 66, 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.
1 Cf. Bernhard Weiss, op. tit., p. 275. 107

38 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
However, in vs. 10 there is a new introduction — tot* HXeyev avroZs —
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. 11a as interpolated by the evangelist or a later scribe from Mark, we
have in vss. 10, 116 a sufficient 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 are entirely Markan; the exact agree
ment of the appUcation, verses 32-33, with Mark, in language and in
order, is sufficient proof, while greater editorial freedom is usuaUy 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 paraUel, much less complete, in Mark 11 : 19; but the two
facts of considerable expansion and of transposition to this location
(principle 1), 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, 116, 12a, 13-15, 18-20, 216-22, 236-260, 28, 34-38; and
which was interpolated, by the evangelist probably, from the Markan
source. m. 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
pecuUar materials (Luke 22 : 15-17, 2706, 28-32, 35-38) is so considerable
as to constitute reaUy 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 responsibiUties (vss. 24-27) ;
then the promise is given of due rewards for responsibiUties already met
(vss. 28-30), foUowed by an affirmation of the pecuUar responsibuity of
the leader in view of the peril of aU (vss. 31-32); and finaUy there is a
108

THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 39
solemn warning of the reaUty of that peril (vss. 35-38). This Farewell
Discourse, like that of the Fourth Gospel, is brought into connection
with the Last Supper.
1. The Last Supper (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;
whUe Harnack1 argues that the evangelist who incorporated Luke 24:30
and Acts 27 135 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.
n : 23-25, and it is necessary either to agree with Wellhausen2 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 famihar ritual of
the Eucharist, or to suppose that Luke himself, the companion of Paul,
has here inserted the ritual famiUar 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 o-cifia iwv,
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 1). It may be noted that the phenomena of
Uterary 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.3
The section faUs 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 1; cf. Uterary
principle 1, 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. 18-190. 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;
1 Luke the Physician, p. 76; Lukas der Arzt, p. 53.
"Op. tit., pp. 121 f.
* 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 Umits of agreement «f or a doublet, is really a "veUed doublet"
and was drawn from the J source. Verse 190, 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 1, since a transposition must in
volve both of the transposed elements. Verses 18-190 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 account of
the incident (principle 1). 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 wiU now be observed that this J account must have had, in its original
form, some fuUer introduction, to which reference is made in vs. 14
in the phrase dVe kykvero if &pa; 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 Umits of
Luke's editorial treatment;1 but their coincidence here (principle 1),
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 iraaxa, 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
Uable to close agreement with Mark, and these verses contain no new
elements, except the specification of Sarayos (which is probably doctrinal)
1 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 arpanfyol (a point of fact which might have been added by any
weU-informed pilgrim to Jerusalem), and they do not stand in any con
nection with the J materials which precede or foUow. 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. 2706 belongs to Class
I, and the rest of the section to Class II. This fact, together with the
transposition (principle 1), and the place of the section in the FareweU
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 of responsibility (Luke 22:28-30). — This section has
no Markan paraUel, though remotely paraUeled 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
IH. As a part of the discourse, then, vss. 31-32, at least, are to be
assigned to J. Between these verses, however, and vs. 35 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 (vfiaiv),
and of Peter in terms similar to those of Matthew 16:18, the latter
apparently of Peter's pecuUar peril, as in the Markan version; the
former addresses him as Simon, and vs. 34 as Peter. Moreover, the
connection of vss. 35-38 with the prophecy of the peril of aU 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 FareweU 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 1) that vs. 39 stood
in J. Moreover, the phrase Kara to Wos 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 FareweU Discourse
were drawn from J. Ill

42 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
IV. EVENTS CONNECTED WITH THE ARREST OF JESUS
i. 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 (dwei Xi0ou
(SoX^e, dird ttjs \vmjs) 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 sufficient to prove the derivation of vs. 40 from J
(principle 1), 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 earUer editorial additions, even in the section Luke
9: 28-37), there is also a change in the form of Jesus' words of submission
(vs. 426) which seems rather an independent rendering in translation than
a natural editorial improvement; and the repetition of the phrase of
warning, in sUghtly varying language, marks another J characteristic
(principle 5 ; cf . p. 63), which suggests that both vs. 406 and vs. 466 were
drawn from J. Further, vss. 41 , 45 are only " remote paraUels " (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 1 ?)
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 famiUar
feature of the Passion-story (cf. John 18: 11; also Mark 10:38).
2. Jesus betrayed and arrested (Luke 22:47-540). — The pecuUar
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.470, 50, 526, 5306. 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 sUghtly interrupts it, and the specific
detail added by Luke that it was the right ear is paraUeled by a simUar
editorial addition in Luke 6:6; so the verse may weU enough have been
drawn from Mark. But vs. 516 is dependent upon vs. 50; therefore, whUe
such a reference to heaUng might have been made by the evangeUst upon
his own responsibiUty (cf. 4:40; 9:11), or he may even have been per-
sonaUy acquainted (as perhaps the fourth evangeUst was, cf. John
112

THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 43
18: 10) 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 heaUng, 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. 5 26 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. 526 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 oi5r»j refers backward), and is
on this account to be referred to J (principle 2).
In vs. 5306 the phrase herelveiv tAs x«P«s &t£ ni»a occurs, which is
found nowhere else in Luke, while his customary locution is bnP&KSeiv
tos x«P<« (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. 526) more closely than
with the J (vs. 53c). Now vs. 520 is largely editorial and probably based
upon a Markan verse (14 : 436) previously omitted, whUe the o-rparriyol 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. 52a, 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 paraUel to Mark 14: 53a is
rather in vs. 666; but the clumsy repetition of fjyayov, eio-rryayov 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 1), 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 substantiaUy vss. 47-49, 510, 53c, and probably vss. 50,
516, 5406.
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, 610 belong to
Class II, and there are many non-Markan details; the two precise
statements of the interval (jiera flpa.xv> &a<rrA<njs bad Spas juias), the
change in the second and third speakers designated, and the additional
detail in vs. 61 that a glance from Jesus recaUed 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 1), indicates that we are here deaUng, 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.
56-600; 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. 610 and perhaps even vs. 616 — nal imnviiadij 6 II. rod
jtfinaros tov nvpiov — though vs. 62 will form a sufficient conclusion.
Verses 606, 61c 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 1) 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.
1. 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 foUowing morning, and by omission of the verdict (cf. Mark, 14 164)
reduces it from the dignity of a trial to the level of a mere grand-jury
process for preparing the indictment.1 He omits, further, aU 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. 70,2 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,
especiaUy in the repetition of the direct interrogation, but also in the
transposition of so many detaUs that the nearest Markan paraUels
run in the order Mark 14:536, 53a, 616, (610), 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 irpeafivTkpiov tov 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 1), 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 Ukely), or Luke chose to substitute this verse
for the fuUer 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
1 Cf. R. W. Husband, The Prosecution of Jesus, pp. 183 f., 210 ff.
2 Verse 706 is often interpreted as a "round affirmation" (cf. Bernhard Weiss,
op. tit., p. 223; Feine, Eine vorkanonische UeberUeferung des Lukas [189^], 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 evangeUst 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 1), as well as the originaUty 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 paraUel
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. 22co*
contains two clauses (ovStv alnov evpov, irai8eva-as hirokvou) repeated from
earUer J sections (principle 5), and these require (principle 2) that at
least a part of the coUoquy preceding be ascribed to J; but since the
only agreement of the passage with Mark in significant words is in
vs. 226 (ti yap icaicdv kToiriaev), it is likely that the whole passage is
derived from J, with this single interpolation from Mark.
Thereferences to Barabbas (vss. 18-19, 25a) are not, to be sure, at aU
essential to the narrative, and might easily be suppUed from Mark
(even the added detail in vs. 19 — ytvopkvnv kv t% tt6\u — 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 1), 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 implied: Kariaxvov ai <pwvol ai/Tuv, H.
iiriicpivev yevko-dai to aVnma avrwv, rdv 'hjaovv iraptSwuev t$ deKiifian avruv.
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. 226, may be ascribed to J.
116

THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 47
VI. JESUS' DEATH AND BURIAL
i. 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 p,fi KXaiere kir' kpJk, 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
IH) there is no reason for supposing it had any other source, while
its importance is too sUght 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 equaUy Ukely 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. 33a, 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 1), as weU as its necessary connection with vss. 32 and 39
(principle 2), are sufficient grounds for ascribing it also to J, aside from
its want of agreement with Mark. Verse 340 is rejected by Westcott
and Hort as a "Western interpolation." Verse 346 is a secondary
detail merely, not Uable 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.
350), 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 detaUs
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
1), 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 affect the narrative, and may be ascribed
to accident — interpolation as an afterthought when the evangeUst 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 usuaUy 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, 48-490) 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 weU with
the other indications of source. Verses 46, 48 are pecuUar details which
must have been drawn from a non-Markan source (principle 2); 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
editoriaUy 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 IjKlov kiiKelirovTos is in the
manner of the evangeUst,1 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 paraUel" 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. 35-37 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, 48-490 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. oil.,
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
pecuUar 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 evangelist'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 foUowing 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. 50-510 were derived from J (principle 6), and that after copying
these Luke turned to his Markan source for the designation of Joseph (tod
'ApinaOaias) 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 1).
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.1
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 wiU first be noted that vss.
55-56 belong to Class II in aU their parts, while 24:1 is throughout
closely paraUel 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
1 It is, however, possible that vss. 51a, 53c 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 Ust of the women to vs. 10 of Luke; for had the evan
geUst intended to give such a list he could hardly, if following the Markan
account, have omitted it, even accidentaUy, 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 (16:1) that the purchase was made on Saturday evening;
but Luke speaks of the women's preparation on Friday afternoon (vs. 560)
and expressly states that on the Sabbath they rested (vs. 566). This dis
crepancy is sUght, however, and may be due simply to editorial care
lessness. If the transposition too is due to the derivation of the Ust 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 Ust 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 evangeUst 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
teUs of two angels instead of one, of the women having previously noted
the empty tomb, transforms a promise of reunion in GaUlee 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, 106 recount how the women told the disciples, and appear to be a
doublet of the same detail drawn from two different sources, whUe
the position of vs. ioo 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 1), and because J would naturally have contained
some resurrection narrative (principle 2). Their only agreement in lan
guage with Mark, the phrase ovk Io-tiv &>8e dXXct rrykpOn 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. ioa) is parallel (Class III) to Mark; but it
differs somewhat in content.1 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
weU have been drawn from the Markan document.2 Verse n 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. 2-100) with Markan appendix
(vss. 106-1 1). Verse 1 2 is rejected by Westcott and Hort as a " Western
non-interpolation. " This J account must have had some introduction,
and this lends further probabiUty to the theory that J materials are
represented in the transitional paragraph preceding (23:55 — 24:1).
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
1 The mention of 'iu&va might, however, be an early scribal, or even an editorial,
addition from Luke 8:3 (cf. the substitution of 'ioWSas 'laxiiffov in the list of the Twelve,
6: 16). The SaXwju') of Mark (16: 1), omitted in Mark 15:47 and in Matt. 28: 1, maybe
a similar textual corruption.
. 2 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 (28:86) and of Luke
(vs. iol). 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. n-15) is more probable than the hypothesis of Rohrbach (Schluss
des Markusevangeliums), Harnack (Text, und Unters., LX [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 GaUlean appearances (Mark 14:28; 16:7; and cf. Matt.
28: 16). It 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 Passionrgospel 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 OUves 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. 9-100, 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
evangeUst 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 points
of agreement are the promise of spiritual power (Luke 24:49; Acts
1 :8a) and the commission as "witnesses" (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:86).
Therefore, as in the closing section of the Gospel, it appears that these
materials may be ascribed (principle 6) to J.
3. Jesus' appearance to the disciples (Luke 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 stiU 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 aim1 and to press home his
message regarding Jesus, as near the close of his work as the finality of
the Ascension wiU aUow. 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 typification of the communion of his Spirit
with the beUever, especially in the rite of the Eucharist (vss. 29-30) ; and
finaUy, 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;2 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.3
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 Pauline
doctrines, such as justification through Christ (which is comprehended
in the address at Pisidian Antioch), are quite omitted.4 Harnack,
1 Cf. Hawkins in Ox. Stud., pp. 90-94.
aCf. Acts 2:22-35; 3=13-15, r8, 21-24; 13:23-41, etc. (But these too are
Lukan.) 3 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 out1 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 Uterary
fashion when he wrote, "These are written that ye may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, and that beUeving ye may have life in his name."2
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
evangeUst; 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:3 Luke ig: 28, 37-44; 21:120,
13-15, 18-20, 216-22, 236-260, 28, 34-36, 37~38; 22:8, 14-190, 21,
23-24, 25-32, 35-38, 39, 40-41, 426-46, 47a, 47M9, 5i<*, 53c» 54^,
55-600, 610, 62, 63-65, 66a, 67-68, 70; 23:1-2 (3), 4-16, 18-21, 226-
24, 27-33, 35-37, 39-43, 46, 48-49^, 5°-5i0 (5ifr-53*), 53^-54, 55S6;
24: (1), 2-100, 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 -.47-48; 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.
1 Luke the Physician, pp. 139-43; Lukas der Arzt, pp. gg-io2.
2 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 detaU;
but jts 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 n . 75 per cent, are common also to Mark; while in the remaining
103I 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 earUer portion (Luke 19:28 — 22:13) of 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: (1) 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 evangeUst would be much more Ukely to copy the language
accurately than in the reproduction of longer paragraphs,1 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
stiU 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 wiU 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.
1 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 evangeUst's work.
1. 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 Hawking1 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. Elimi
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 aU in the Markan materials. Adding to these
66 words the other 64 words which 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 Uttle 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
1 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 evangeUst than
to that of his source. Further sifting is therefore necessary. We may
consider, therefore, two classes of words: those pecuUarly characteristic
of the J materials and those which do not occur elsewhere in the Lukan
writings. To the first class wUl 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 pecuUarly 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 Ust 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 Ust of Appendix II with a single asterisk, *), including
40 words not found elsewhere in the New Testament. This gives a
total of 127 words which may fairly be called characteristic of the source
rather than of the evangeUst, or a Uttle 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 33 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 probabiUty 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, n more not found
elsewhere in the Third Gospel, and also 4 hapax legomena — a total of
51 words in aU, or one- third of the whole vocabulary. The figure for
the simUar 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 ; whUe 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 evangeUst him-
setf . 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, arid
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 evangelist, so far from composing freely, is
rather foUowing 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 caUed characteristic of the test sections; but the
J sections contain 127 characteristic words, which form a little 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 foUowing tabulation of the foregoing data, the first column of
figures presents the actual number of words from the vocabulary of J
which faU 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 faU into the particular class; the
fourth, the number of such words paraUeled 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

Pro
portion

Words

Per
centage

Words

Markan Words

Per
centage

Total number of words 

2,703 582 214 71
64

100. 0
36.8 12.2
II. O

460 159 92

Number of different words 
7°
IOO. O
57-8
1. 00
Common words 
i-5o
Characteristics of non-Markan sections. .
15
12
9.4
251 6466
31
II. O
"¦3 5-3
52151719
Characteristics of non-Markan sections. .
J characteristics in non-Markan sections
J characteristics in Markan sections ....
121516
9-4
10.7 12.0
......
Total 
161 97
114 40
27.6 16.619.4 6.7
51
36 11 4
4331 8
0
32.0 22.6 6.9 2-5
1. 16
Words rare in rest of Luke 
t
Words not in rest of New Testament 
Total 
251 37 So
40
42-7 6.58.66.7
5i24 44
39 21 3 0
32.0 i5-o 2.52-5
0.75
Words most often in present sections . . .
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,1 that the third evangeUst 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.1
Verbs. — We may examine first the verbs. Of the verbs of striking,
TU7TTO) is rare in J (1:3:5), though Usted by Hawkins as characteristic of
Luke, as compared with ira'uo (1:0:0), iraTaaow (2:0:3), and irai8eva>
in the sense of "scourge" (2:0:0). Of verbs Of fearing, irrokonai is
pecuUar to J (2:0:0), while <poBkop.ai (1:3:5) and rapaaau (1:1:3) are
rare. Of verbs of silence, tnyau, 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 auavau (1:1:1).
Of verbs of praising, etiXoyku (5:6:2) is preferred to aiviu (1:2:2) or
8o£a£a> (1:8:5). Of verbs of doing, xpkaoa (4:2:13) is proportionately
more frequent than iroiew (5:83:69). Of verbs of going, tpxop,ai (5:94:
55) and its compounds (14: 132: 130) are proportionately rare, as against
iropevoftai (8:43:39) and avp.iroptbop.ai (1:2:0). Of verbs of sitting,
Kadrjuai (4:8:7) is preferred to xa$i£u> (1:6:9); and of verbs of recUning,
&vaxtLp,at (2:0:0) is preferred to avawiirco (1:3:0) or xaraxKivu (1:5:0).
Of verbs of conceaUng, xaKvirru and irtpixaKvirTU (1:1:0 and 1:0:0)
seem preferred to xpvirrca (1:3:0). Verbs of announcing and preaching
are aU rare; but tvayyt\i£op,at. (0:10:15) is entirely wanting in J,
while airayykWw (1:10:16) and xripvo-a^ca (1:8:8) both appear. Of
verbs to describe the resurrection, kviarnni kx vtxpmv (2:1:1) is propor
tionately more frequent than kyti.pop.ai kx vexp&v (2:5:8).
Nouns. — Of designations of the inner circle of Jesus' followers, ol
nadrjTai (2:5:0) is preferred to 01 S&Stxa (tvStxa) (3:6:3) or 01 airoo-roKoi
(i:7:plurr.). Of designations of transgressors, xaxovpyos (3:0:0) is
preferred to apapruKos (1:16:0) or Hvopos (1:0:1). Of titles of rulers in
the ecclesiastical body irpto-Bvrtpos (0:3:7) is wanting, but ol ttp&toi
(1:0:3) and ol apxovres (3:5:10) are used. For reference to a grave,
1 The basis of comparison here will be the proportion between the number of
occurrences of one word and those of its synonyms, 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, 2) 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
p.vrjna (o : 3 : 2) is wanting, but pvripttov (5 : 2 : 1) is common. For writing
and writings ypappa (0:2:2) is wanting, but ypa<j>ii (3:1:1) and t6
ytypappkvov (4:2:2) are frequent, although the finite perfect ykypairTat,
is rare (1:10:5). For "deed," ep'yoi' (1:1:10) seems rare, compared
with irp&£is (1:0:1), and irpayp.a (o : 1 : 1) is wanting. God is referred to
as IlaT^p somewhat frequently (3 : 13 : 3) as against the more general term
Geos (9:82:173), and Kupios is rare (i:38:plurr..). The noun apxiepefa
is wanting in the singular (0:3 : 11), but frequent in the plural (7:5:11).
Adjectives. — For "many," ixavos (3:7:18) is decidedly preferred
to iroXirs (2 : 42 : 49). For " all, " 8Xos (1 : 15 : 20) is rare, and a7ras (4:7: 10)
is frequent, relatively to iras (2i:i33:plurr.). For "other," eVepos
(4:30:18) is rare compared with &XXos (2:7:5) and Xonros (2:4:6).
For the mention of a name, xahovpevos (1:7:9), and especially \tyoptvos
(1:0:0), are preferred to the uses of 6vopa — bvop-art. (2:5:22) and <3 ovopa
(1:6:1). For "deserving," atnos (3:0:1) is preferred to aj-tos (2:6:7),
rlpios (0:0:2), or 'iimpos (0:2:0). Of the two adjectives for "left-
hand," J uses opio-repos (1:0:0), while the rest of the New Testament
uses eviivvpos (0:0:1, etc.). For indefinite article, th (3:14:3) seems to
approach tIs (9: 70: 118) more closely here than elsewhere.
Adverbs and particles." — As an adverb of asseveration octws (2:0:0) is
preferred to apty (1 : 5 : o) or the phrase kx' a\r\dtlas (1:3:2). Among the
prepositional adverbs for "before," kvavrlov (2:1:2) is preferred to
ipicpoaOtv (3:6:2) and kvonriov (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: AToBalvu in the
sense to happen, elsewhere to descend; 8darnpi, to depart; kxKdirw, to
be ecUpsed; iraiStvw, to scourge, elsewhere used of education; ffvWapBavu,
to arrest, elsewhere used of the act of conception ; <j>aivw, to seem, elsewhere
meaning to become visible; irvtvpa, of the spirit of a dead person, but
not used of demons; and aropa 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,
o-cbf w 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 (0:10:11). And 7rpoc>i;Tifr 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 line 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 iroXta,
which occurs but twice in the J materials, but is found in the rest of Luke
42 times, and 46 times in Acts. Other simUar words are: the impersonal
use of ky'tvtro (5:43:-), vitkpx^ (1:15:25), Siipxopai (0:10:20), 7ricrros
(0:4:4), irotunpbs (0:12:8), ayyiKos (1:23:21), &/*aarcoX6s (1:16:0),
6 Kvpios, of God (1:38: plurr.) and of Jesus (2 : 14 : plurr.), 7r6X« (4 : 42 : 43),
TpmpfijTiis (4:27:42), xpovos (1:6:17), fax*! (1:12:17), #XP« (i:3:l7)»
kxei (1:15:6), vvv (3:15:26), and irtpos (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 aU 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 wiU go far to confirm the conclusion that the third evange
Ust 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
evangeUst. 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.
1. 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,1 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 paraUel in the earUer portions of the Gospel. Such are: irpds rg
xaraBao-ti tov opovs tuv t\aiuv (19:37), cocrei Xidov Bo\r\v (22 :4i), SiaoTAcnjs
1 Cf. A. Plummer, St. Luke (in International Critical Commentary), pp. xlvi-xlvii.
132

THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 63
itati upas /was (22:59), /*«T^ Ppaxb (22:58), a/tckxovaav ffradlovs iljfixovTa
(24:13), api-apjtvoi dird TepowraX^ju (24:47). Other phrases which are
more common in the synoptic tradition and in other parts of Luke, such
as eri avrov XaXouiros (22:47, °°; 24:36), irapaxpypa (22:60, a Lukan
characteristic), avrfj tjj «pa (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:
Otis to yhvara (22:42), Atto ttjs Xutti;s (22:45), xadJiptvos irpos to 0ws
(22:56), 6 Kuptos kv'tffKef/tv tco Herpa) (22:61), irtpiBaK&v kadrjra \apvpav
(23:11), ky'tvovro <t>i\oi (23:12), ov ovk rp> ovSeis oiwu xtipitvos (23:53),
to p.iv o-6.BBa.Tov ^avxaaav (23 : 56), xKivowwv ra irpbawira. (24 : 5), kaT&8r\aav
axvOpwiroi (24:18), xtxKixtv fj8r] ^ ripepa (24:29), IxOOos dirrov pkpos
(24:42). IUustrative 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 evangeUst constructs his discourse with
considerable skill and habitually avoids the loose appending of descrip
tive detaUs 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 evangeUst, are not infrequent. The most
striking examples are the dating of the entombment of Jesus (23:54)
and the Ust 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).
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, 7°), 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), whUe PUate'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 disbeUef 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 evangeUst (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 PUate
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, 30-49), and three appear
ances of the risen Jesus (24: 15, 34, 36). But that these triads are not
due to the evangeUst'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).
A third characteristic of the J materials Ues in the ability with which
they preserve the individuaUty 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 Lukan version
(23:47), although the evangeUst adds one of his own favorite phrases,
not at all suitable to the Roman, kbb^tv rbv Otbv. 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 poUtical term "king
of the Jews" (23:37). The charges preferred against Jesus are likewise
Jewish in the Sanhedrin (22 : 66, 70), but poUtical before Pilate (23 : 2, 5).
This dramatic quaUty comes out tragically at the close of Jesus' FareweU
Discourse (22:38), where the disciples again fail to understand his
meaning,1 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).
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).
2 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 ttvai.: 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:i9).1 The optative mood is comparatively rare (1:12:-).
The verb yivop,ai, while common in J (29: 101 :-), is rare in the impersonal
use of ty'tvtro (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, m 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 opdco in the meaning "to appear"
(cf. Luke 1:11; Acts 1:3; 2:3; 7:26,30,35; 9:17; 26:16 its) and in
the phrase touto vulv yvuffrbv tara (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., kmdvpia tTttBvprnca,
^<opg ptyfCKg txpa^tv), seems to be sUghtly 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" (rd
ytvbpxva., to pkWovra, rd kobp&vov, tA avpBtBrixbra, etc.) are especially
common in J (6:6:5; CI- Luke 21:36; 22:49; 23:47, 4^; 24:14, 18;
2:15; 8:34,35,56; 9:7; 13:9; Acts 3:10; 4:21; 5:7: 12:9; 13:12).
Noteworthy is an extended use of the article in a number of relations.
The genitive toO with the infinitive is sUghtly 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 — rb xad' fipkpav — once in J (Luke
19:47) and once in an earUer passage of Luke (n :^).
In the uses of prepositions the foUowing may be noted: airb
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). di& with the genitive is rare (2:12:54; in J only in
1 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 kx is common (4 times, in Luke
22:23, 5°; 24:i3, 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 kwl with the dative is rare (3:30:25). irpos with the dative is
used by Luke only in J (Luke 19:37). For the notion of agency, Air6
is to some extent replaced by vvb; in the rest of Luke the former quite
largely predominates (A7ro 39 times, virb '21 times), but in J their occur
rences are the same in number (awb in Luke 21:26; 22:45; 2^'-4Ii
iiirb in Luke 21:20, 24; 23:8), but both expressions are comparatively
rare (6:60:-). The use of 'ius 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 ti 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> 0:9j 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
evangeUst himseU and his sources are not aU of them of large significance
taken singly, but their coUective 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,1
concludes that four sections of our J materials — Luke 19:41-44; 23:
5-12, 14-1 5 ; 23 : 39-43 ; and chapter 24 — are from the pen of the evange
Ust 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 aU 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 enumeration of the occur
rences of a selected list of "Lukan characteristics," there is yet a certain
1 V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, II, 276-322.
136

67
degree of weight to be given to the numerical argument. And this weight
by no means faUs 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, 4°~50), 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.1
Certainly then Stanton's conclusions must await confirmation from
other evidence, and cannot be made to offset 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 evangelist was himseU translating, or the use of a docu
ment whose style more nearly resembled the evangeUst'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, Torrey2 has shown that the Greek of the Third Gospel
is not by any means the spoken vernacular of the first century, but
bears aU the marks of being a pure translation-idiom, the product of
an attempt to carry over into an aUen 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.
2 C. C. Torrey, "The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic 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 evangeUst; 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 Ust of "Aramaisms " set forth by Wellhausen,1 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, equaUy 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 2\ 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 2y 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 difficult 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
1 J. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten EvangeUen, 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 1 per verse. This suggests that the evange
Ust can hardly be responsible for the Semitic coloring of the language;
but Plummer has pointed out1 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 (kykvtTo, xal ibov, aiirbs 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
3=3 61 24
38 28
55 21
153

0.90 2.52
r-45 2.2.

66 23 15
39 21
55

attribute more than a minimum of Semitisms to the third evangeUst 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 evangeUst is employing materials
which originated in a Semitic miUeu, 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 Uterary
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
1 A. Plummer, St. Luke, pp. xlix-1.
2 B. W. Bacon, "More Philological Criticism of Acts," American Journal of Tke-
ology, XXII (1918), 17. 139

70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
marked diversity of style, especially if it Ue 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.
cit.), that, with true Uterary instinct, the third evangeUst 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 pecuUarities of vocabulary,
of individuaUties 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 foUowing a
source, it may safely be asserted that the evidence of the Uterary 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 detaUs there are enough
sUght 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 duaUstic world-
view of the rest of the synoptic literature; but this theoretical duaUsm
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 deUverance 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 bliss
in heaven. The world is under the dominion of the powers of evil, more or less
fuUy (22:53), Dut 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 PASSION7NARRATIVE 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), and 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
Uttle reflection; he occasionaUy refers to God in the words "my Father"
(22:29; 23:4°; 24:49), but he refuses to claim a pecuUar 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 sUghtest traces: upon
the cross he prolepticaUy 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:S> 24:i9)> it is this that
Ues behind the taunt of his tormentors, "Prophesy!" (22:64) and it is
the failure to act upon his warning and thus escape the dominion of
Satan that caUs 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 Uttle 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 apocalypticaUy from heaven to estabUsh the
Kingdom. The presentation of this view is one of the main interests of
the J source. It is set forth expUcitly in the resurrection-narratives
(24: 25-27, 44-46), and impUed 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). Onepassage
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 estabUshment of the Kingdom
is still future (22:29; 23:42_43)- The PauUne title 6 Kvpws, 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'itre 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 recaUs 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 UteraUstic; 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 ratified 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 little
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 establishment 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 practicaUy 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; 22'3$)i
and apparently their deUverance is thought of as supernatural (21:28).
More interesting to the author is the idea of the punishment of Judaism
by the faU of its capital (19:41-44; 21:20-24; 23:28-31, 48), which
plays an especiaUy 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 estabUsh-
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 x&P« 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 Uls is included in the same exercise
of power (21 : 15, 28). The Pauline words ttmttis and tno-Ttvoa are almost
equaUy 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 wiU 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),
whUe the Temple is the scene of his activities and of his disciples' (19 : 47 ;
21:37; 24:S3)- The Jewish people are regarded in* a friendly Ught
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 xaO' ¦iipkpav; 21:37,
tos iipkpas; 22:39, KaTa T0 W°s> 22:53> Ka^ ^Pav> 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; 24:2c).1 These are always the
"high priests," and the earUer antagonists, the Pharisees, appear only
at the triumphal entry (19:39). Of the "universaUsm" of Luke there
is Uttle — 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 Ught. 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, 33); 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 dnly members of the Kingdom mentioned are the Twelve Tribes.
At the very conclusion of the Gospel, it is true, the commission to preach
to aU nations is given; but this, the only point at which the final narra
tives paraUel the other synoptics, is just the point which the evangelist
must have added from his general knowledge of the Christian movement
1 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 13:10; Matt. 24:14) is significant.
We may therefore conclude that, as against the Hellenistic universaUsm
of the evangeUst, 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 faU 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) and 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 GalUean 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 : i-n).
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 evangeUst, 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.
TV. 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. 33) 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 maybe noted which serve to confirm this impression: apaprooXbs
(19:7) is frequent in P (6 times) and found but once in J; diayoyyvfav
(19:7) occurs elsewhere in Luke only in P (15:2); 8ov\os (vss. 13,
15, 17, 22) is frequent in P (14 times) but rare in other parts of Luke
(5 times, and 3 times in Acts) ; rb diroXtoXos (vs. 10) is found only in P
(4 times); kTravkpxop.ai (vs. 15) occurs only in 10:35; kXaxtcrros^ (vs. 17)
in 12: 26 and 16:10; 0epi£w(vss. 21, 22) in 12:24; ttoXIti/s (19: 14) in 15:15
and once in Acts; wpto-Bda (vs. 14) in 14:32; t& vir&pxovra in the sense
"property" (vs. 8) occurs 6 times in P, once in G, and once in Acts;
i)vo8kxopa<. (vs. 6) once in P and once in Acts; and <puvku in the sense
of "summon" (vs. 15) twice in P and 3 times in Acts. The phrase
vlbs (or Ovyarfip) 'KBpahp. (vs. 9) is also characteristic of P (13:16; cf.
16:22-24). This evidence seems sufficient to estabUsh 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 Uterary unity of any writing against all
possible criticisms and objections is, in general, a difficult, 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 Uterature is a Uving thing and can hardly be reduced to rote.
A mechanical demonstration of Uterary unity, therefore, must nearly
always faU, and to establish the unity of a document it must be suffi
cient to show that there are few vaUd 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 detaUs 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 faUs, 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
foUowing 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 FareweU 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 ?
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 dupUcation 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
FareweU 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).
A third indication of unity is the presence of ideas common to different
parts of the source, which serve to Unk 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 faU of Jerusalem. The Apocalyptic Discourse
also shares with the FareweU Discourse the description of f utiire 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 Unks, if significant, wiU connect for us the initial nar
rative,, the central narrative, the Apocalyptic Discourse, and the Fare
weU 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 FareweU 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, tl oi tl 'b xpwtos
(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 impUed 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,
I3» 35! 24:20). These links of common ideas, if significant, wiU 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
f in the Ust, 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 connebtions are indicated upon the
accompanying diagram (p. 80).
Against the unity of these materials may be urged the fact that the
impersonal use of kykvtro, which is rare in the J materials, approximates
the normal in the resurrection-narratives, occurring three times (24:15,
30, 51); but roKvs, which is characteristically rare in the J materials,
does not occur at aU 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, 13I verses (23:50 — 24:10a).
Section E. Narratives of the resurrection appearances, 41 verses.

Fifth, a more deUcate 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 equaUy 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 aU 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 Usted
by Wellhausen,1 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)

Words
Marked t

J Characteristics

Number of

Words
Marked *

Proportion per
Verse

Number

Stanton

Lukan
Characteristics

Propor
tion per
Verse

Number

Wellhausen

Aramaisms

Propor tion per
Verse

Introductory narrative :
19:28,37-40,47-48..19:41-44 
20:20, 26 
2o: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 
23:30-43 
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 

1617 8*
13 of 7*
6*
15 85
4 u

64 u

13* 23 864

41
173

3 5 5
14 7 21
9 7
o4 3 1

34 2
10

13 2
o 1

16
89

1. 14
2.001. 00
0.66

1-25

8
10 1
4

20 2

0.87 i-53
0.82 1.691.26
0.80o-53 ii3r-3o
0.20 1.50 1.00
0.84

10 5 2
25 5
o 7
11 7

0.94 0.61 1 05
0.660.30 1.66
0.640.00 r-75
2.20 2.00

23
38 13 282112 10
27 9
14 4 6 8

27 6 1

0.96 1.60 1.30

72 9 7

1.80
0.82

9
12

13 4 I
o

1.401.30
0.62
0.16 1. 00

16
42 S84

1. 18
1.83
0.62 1-331. 00

55 1011

18
93

0.83 1-05

59
163

1-451. 14

3i8

1. 14
2.50
0.50 r-33

1.44 2.23

1-53 2.152.211.601.82 1.801. 16
2.801. 00
1.202.28

r-731.801. 41

i-5S 2-391-251.832.00

2.051.82

1 J. Wellhausen, Einleit., pp. 15-25.
2 V. H. Stanton, Tke Gospels as Historical Documents, LI, 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 itseU:

TABLE V

J Characteristics

Aramaisms

Lukan
Characteristics

Introductory narratives 

0.87 i-53
0.82 1.69
0.96 1.40
0.83

1.442-331-53
2.15r-73i-5o2.05

Apocalyptic Discourse 

Last Supper narrative 

0.94

Farewell Discourse 

Central narratives 

l.IO

Burial narratives 

Resurrection narratives 
r-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 Uterature is such that Uttle can be
determined from the proportional frequency of one or another set of
styUstic particulars in any section of it. A few conclusions may be
drawn, however.
a) The proportion of Lukan characteristics listed by Stanton is in
no one of the groups equal to that of the earUer Markan sections which
he Usts.1 Here, in the passages 4:31-44; 5:12-26; 8:22-56, 63 verses
in aU, there are 107 Lukan characteristics, an average of 1 . 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 evangeUst.
6) 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 : 27-3 1, 2 . 80 per verse; but Luke 23 : 39-43, 1 . 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 smaU
minority of the words truly characteristic of J and that the majority of
the words so Usted are found in this section only of the Lukan writings.
1 Stanton, op. tit., pp. 279-86. 152
THE SOURCES OP 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 originaUy a small independent apocalypse of the fall
of Jerusalem; but the difference in subject-matter wUl account in part
for the smaU 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 evangeUst. In no other
section of the J source do the pecuUar 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 simUar 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.
First, there are no doublets in the J source. It has been shown above
(pp. 17-19) that doublets, especiaUy those of the Third Gospel, result
most frequently from the dupUcation 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 Uterary 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.
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 evangeUst's point of view.
They lead simply to the conclusion, already 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*/, 46b, 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 literaUy as protection against assassination) (22:36)
and the protest against its use under particular circumstances (22:51).
Thirdly, the continuity of the narrative and the Umitations 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 dupUcates 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 OP LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 85
II. LITERARY PORM
As regards the Uterary 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
materials1; and second, the Lukan coloring, which, if extensive, would
lead to the inference that the third evangeUst either was giving Uterary
form to an oral tradition or was himseU translating a document into the
Greek ahd 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 evangeUst 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, especiaUy
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
evangeUst, 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 Uterary 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 Stanton1
1 Stanton, op. cit., pp. 279-309. 155

86 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
are fewer than in the Markan materials (1.09 occurrences per verse,
against 1 . 70 per verse in Markan materials) ; and this is in spite of the
fact that 97 of the 151 words listed by Hawkins1 as characteristic of
Luke are found in the J materials.
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 (1.82 per verse, or 1 . 67 per verse for the narra
tive portions, against 1 .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 equaUy large proportion of Lukan characteristics.3 These two
features — strong Semitic coloring and predominance of Lukan charac
teristics — may then be considered as typical of translations by the third
evangelist 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 evangeUst in a
Semitic version, and the further fact that the proportion of Lukan charac
teristics is smaUer even than in the Markan materials quite disproves it.
Further proof that the document was Greek is also to be found in
its peculiarities of vocabulary and style, which have been fully discussed
akeady (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 originaUy 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 evangeUst 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
1. 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
1 Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2d ed., 1909), pp. 16-23.
2B. W. Bacon, "More Philological Criticism of Acts," American Journal of
Theology, XXII (1918), 3.
3 Hawkins, op. tit. (2d ed., 1909), p. 25.
156

THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION'-NARRATIVE 87
difficult. 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 fareweU 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 earUer.
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 dupUcation
between different Passion-narratives is inevitable. Any and aU 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 equaUy inevitable. The J
source, therefore, wiU inevitably have related much that was told also
in Mark, and some of its materials may have been supplanted by simUar
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 evangeUst wiU here also have edited and improved the form of his
source, especiaUy at the beginning or the end of a section. A pretty clear
sample of this is found in 2 2 : 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 evangeUst 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 foUowing 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, .116. The Apocalyptic Discourse, as previously given, is
without a suitable introduction. The words rbrt V^tytv airrols in
vs. 10 create a break in the discourse which hints at a transition to a
new document, and the words which foUow in vs. 10, whUe paraUeled in
Mark, are a quotation from Isa. 19:2, and so easily dupUcated in more
than one source, while vs. 1 1 b contains details not found in Mark. Verse
na, however, seems to be Markan.
22:33. The words <t>v\axii and voptbtaOat. are characteristic or fre
quent in J, so it is likely that Peter's reply (though not vs. 34) stood in J.
22 : 46 J. This phrase is paraUeled 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, 51ft. The words iraTaaau), els, and the partitive use of kx
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 paraUel at aU
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 xal t\tytv
avTols. 23:25. The repetitiousness and the word <pv\axfi are characteristic
of J. 23:47. The naturalness (dramatic verisimiUtude) with which the
Roman speaks is a characteristic of J.
23 : 55-56. Already assigned to J. The word pvtjfielov 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
coUection of "testimonies"1 and introduced here either by the evange
Ust 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 Uterary
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 coUection
of "testimonies" from which 20:18 was drawn.
23:516-530. Markan materials replacing a necessary J con
nection. 1 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 aheady 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 habituaUy 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 document1 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 fuUer 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, 116-120, 13-15, 18-20,
216-22, 236-260, 28, 34-38).
3. The Last Supper (22:8, 14-190, 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, 426-520, 53, 540, 55-600, 6106, 62-65).
6. The Trial of Jesus (22:660, 67-68, 70; 23:1-2, 4-220, 22C-25).
7. The Crucifixion (23:27-33, 35-37, 39~43, 46-49»)-
8. The Narratives of the Tomb (23:50-510, 53C-56; 24:2-100).
9. The Resurrection Appearances (24:13-53).
1 For a reconstruction of the document see Appendix HI.

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 PauUne 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 GentUes 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_4S)- Again, there is a real""\
interest in the Temple, and Jesus is closely connected with it (cf. 19:47;/
21 :38; 22 : 53), and the disciples are represented as making it the cradlef
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). AQd the general tone of the narrative throughout reflects a
Jewish environment.1
Certain detaUs 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 reaUy 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
1 Cf. P. Feine, Eine vorkanoniscke UeberUeferung des Lukas (1891), 61-62; B.
Weiss, Quellen der syn. Ueberlief., p. 170. Wellhausen (Emleit., 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 pecuUar 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 locaUties beyond
which figure at aU 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 Ufe of the
city. And finaUy, 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 himseff may have been one of them.
FinaUy, it may be suggested, but only tentatively, that the author
was Cleopas (24:1s).1 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 expUcable were it reaUy a bit of
1 Harnack (Luke the Pkysician, p. 153; Lukas der Arzt, p. 108) ascribes this material
to Philip the evangelist and his daughters. 161

92 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
autobiography, whUe 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 reaUy to be traced to the
Jewish Christian community of Jerusalem, its date is most naturaUy
to be sought in the period preceding the fall of the city in 70 A.D.;
for the flight of the Jerusalem community to PeUa 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 faU 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 Ught of other
facts. We turn first, therefore, to an examination of other indications
of the date at which the Jerusalem source took shape.
1. 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), m 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 wiU withstand their enemies (21 : 15)
and not a hair of their head will fall (21:18-19), and their deUverance
from the toils wiU 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 ruUng 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. 1), and there is nothing to indicate that there
was any popular feeling 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 easUy beUeve 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,1 and the
breach remained wide; so that after 68 a.d. there could have been no
such feeUng 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 onry on the last
occasion, when imprisoned by Herod Agrippa, was he kept in prison for
any length pf 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. — PoUtically a similar situation is reflected.
There is a large interest in Herod Antipas, and especiaUy 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, n, 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 aU the mingUng 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
1 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 fuU in its events collectively (24: 10, 33) and
figurmg prominently as individuals (24 : 13, 18). On the other hand there
is a considerable interest in estabUshing and supporting the authority of
the apostles. Their prominence is tacitly recognized in the command to
humiUty (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, XS)- But Peter's
primacy is especiaUy supported; he estabUshes the brethren (22:32);
he is the first to recover from the blow of Jesus' arrest and raUy to his
old aUegiance (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 gentUe controversy, and the CouncU 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 ve&repos
may imply the existence of TpeaBvrtpoi, and the 8iaxovuv also appears;
but both of the words retain largely their Uteral 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, prolepticaUy, the Christ (cf. p. 71). He is
also presented as the Servant of the Lord described by the exiUc Isaiah
(22:27; 22:37; cf- Isa. 53: 12). These are elements of the earUest 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 wiU 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 bis having suffered and been raised to heaven (cf. Acts 3:20-21;
2:32_33! S: 3°-3i)- 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 earUer
portion of the period between Pentecost and the flight to PeUa, 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 apocalyptic 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 difficulty felt by many at the fact of Jesus'
death, with a warning that this difficulty 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 apostoUc
preaching as it is described in the early chapters of Acts (cf . especiaUy
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 sUghtly 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
incUned 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 generaUy supposed that the descriptions of the faU 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
lyptic 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 earUer, 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. Torrey1 points out that the key to the interpretation^
is certainly to be found in the reflection of Old Testament prophecy;/
for the author himsetf cites it as his authority for the fulfilment of aU^
that is written (21:22).
The passage 19 : 41-44 is yet more definite, and describes the line ol
circumvallation, 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 waU
(rtlxos, Jos. B.J. v. 12.2) instead of the more usual paUsade or rampart
(x&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.J- There is then nothing
in the.detail§_of this passage, tiiough Jt is thejraQsjLdjefinjte_of ihe series,
to precludeJiijejjossjbJUty 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 CaUgula ordered his statue
in the Temple (cf. Joseph. Ant. xviii. 8; B. J. ii. 10; Tac. Ann. xii. 54).
It remains, however, to explain the Uvely 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 foUow
ing the period of the Jewish War such an interest is easily explained —
and this may be the reason why the evangeUst saw fit to employ these 1
materials — but do grounds for such an interest appear earUer ?
-. The motive Which lay behind it, whether before or after the fall of
.thejaiy, 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 evU
(cf . Luke 22 : 53), and that salvation must take the form of an escape from
this dominion. The Jew expected this deUverance 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.
1 Cf. B. Weiss, op. tit., 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 reconciUation of this attitude with the
cordial feeUng of the J author to the Jewish populace may seem difficult;
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 suffer 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
ing of this early day would be difficult unless the traditions had been
handed down in iwritten form, and most difficult had they not been
compUed 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 foUowed 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
detaUs 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 jjarenetic one, to encourage the disciples in the midst of
.trial and persecution by the example of their Lord and by the comfort of
-Ms 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 coUect 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
estabUshed by the fact that the third evangelist chose to foUow 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 Burkitt1 points out, the mocking of
Jesus is attributed to the idUng 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" xpwrbv BaaiKka. 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 — aU 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 weU 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
1 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
qf Harnack,1 who attributes them, with the remainder of Luke's pecuUar
materials, to PhUip 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.
TV. LITERARY RELATIONS
The early date of the Jerusalem document estabUshed, 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.
, 1. 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
Harnack2 that the pecuUar 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 equaUy difficult to connect J with either the GaUlean 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
equaUy upon this point, and whUe 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
1 A. Harnack, op. tit., p. 108; Eng. trans., p. 153.
' P. Feine, op. tit.; B. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukas EvangeUums: Die Quellen
der synopUscke UeberUeferung; A. Harnack, op. tit., 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 arriyal 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 especiaUy the resurrection-
narratives, shares with the infancy narratives a large use of angels
(i:nff.; 1:26 ff.; 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 Uterary
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 essentiaUy 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 essentiaUy the same order, although
there are transpositions as great as the necessary sequence of events wiU
permit. The explanation of the agreements, however, cannot be Ut
erary, but will be found rather in the supposition that both go back to
the common apostoUc tradition, if not to the very events which they
describe. In view of the theory of some1 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,2 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 paraUels between the
Jerusalem source and Matthew are very few.3 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 paraUels. 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 an(i 686, however,
agree quite closely with J (cf. Luke 22:62, 646).* 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 simUar 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. 26:500),
his rebuke of the rash disciples (Luke 22:51; cf. Matt. 26:52-54), and
the account of the spectators at the cross (Luke 23:350; 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,
Esckatology (2d ed., 1913), pp. 379-84.
3 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. 21 144 (=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
Uterary 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
dupUcate the narrative he foUowed. 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 faU 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' wUful disbeUef (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
paraUel location, after 27:44.
It is then equaUy impossible either to demonstrate a Uterary relation
ship or to account for Matthew's omission of practicaUy 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 Uterary relationship between the
First Gospel and the Jerusalem source.
4. Relation to the Fourth Gospel. — It has been frequently remarked1
that the Third Gospel stands closer in many ways to the Fourth Gospel
than do the other two. This relationship Harnack2 ascribes to depend
ence upon a common source, which he, however, is incUned to beUeve
"For example, cf. J. Wellhausen, op. tit., p. 65; A. Harnack, op. tit., Anh. IV,
pp. 157-60; Eng. trans., pp. 224-31.
2 Op. tit., p. 108; Eng. trans., p. 152. 173

104 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
oral rather than literary. This raises the question, however, whether the
materials of J stand in any pecuUar 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); in 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 behaU 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 f aU 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 aU, in both the
resurrection appearances of Jesus are laid in Jerusalem, not in GaUlee;
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 corporeaUty of Jesus, and tell of his eating with the disciples
(Luke 24:41-43; John 21: 12-13); and both 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 paraUels 261 are in the J materials. But there are also only 27 par
allels2 in which the Markan narrative or the common synoptic tradition
is closest or shares with John pecuUar details, and only 123 in which the
First Gospel shares pecuUar 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.
1 For list see Appendix I, list VIH A.
2 For list see Appendix I, list VHI B.
' For list see Appendix I, list VIII C. 174

THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 105
That this relationship is a Uterary one, however, there is no sign.
The resemblances of Luke and John pointed out by Harnack1 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 evangeUst 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 (airoBaXvos, \inn), work, aTa.8t.ov) are J
characteristics. No pecuUar Uterary 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 evangeUst employed a
distinct source of some considerable length in his account of the Passion.
To this conclusion two Unes 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. 1) has estab-
Ushed 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 simUarity 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 evangeUst
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-
ciaUy 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 individuality of style, also, with characteristic forms
1 Loc. tit. 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, finaUy, 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 aUen
origin. Ideas and expressions common throughout the narrative, and the
distribution of characteristic words and Semitic coloring, serve to uphold
its unity, and the absence of doublets and contradictions and the con
tinuity of the narrative further reinforce it.
FinaUy, 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 paraUel in Mark: Luke
19: (1-27), 370, 39-44; 20:18, 34-350, 366; 21:18, 22, 24, 256-260, 28;
22:15-16, 2706, 28-32, 35-38 (43-44), 48-49, Si, 53«, 610, 676-68; 23:4-
16, 226c, 27-31 (340), 350, 39-43, 466, 48-490, Si«, S3C, 566; 24:3,
7-8 (106-n) (12), 13-53.
H. Materials in Luke's Passion-narrative with remote paraUel 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,
236, 34-36, 37-38; 22:3-4, 8, 14, 17, 21, 23, 24-26, 27c, 33, 39-41, 45,
476, S2«, 54«, 5S-S6, 58-600, 62, 63-65, 70; 23:1-2, 18-19, 23-25, 32,
33*, 35^-37, 5o, 54-56o/ 24:2, 4-6, 9.
IH. Materials "closely paraUeled" in Mark, but closely connected with non-
Markan materials: Luke 19:38; 22:18-190, 470, 50, 660; 23:20-21,
33* (38), 460c (47) (516-536); 24:1, 100.
IV. Omissions by Luke 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, 3™, 33~34, 386-42, 44, 46, 50-52, 55-6i, 64; 15:10, 4-6, 8, 10,
16-20, 23, 25, 29, 34-36, 44-455 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, 37*, 38, 45*, 54J 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, 49-510, 50-516 (510-53C), 69-71;
23:330-346.
B. Appended detaUs: 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 (diro),
21 (\«p), 42 (wAijv), 45 (irpos toiis paBrfras), 67 (ciirov rip-lv), 70 (tov
©tov); 24:9 (airfryyakav) , 47 (irovra to iOvrj).
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).
VTII. 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 (John 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, n-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
16, 22), 40-42 (Mark 14/32-36; John 12:27), 42 (Mark 14:36;
John 18:116), 47 (Mark 14:43; John 18:3), 50 (Mark 14:47;
John 18: 100), 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), ti (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 19:29), 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
12:12-130), — (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 18:110), 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; John 20:14-18); — (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.
ayaObsiyyikos
ayopafa
*&ypwrvtu 6Jit\<t>bs
*aBpol$w alvkoalpualrtoptai
*alr7]p.afatrios*alxjia,\uTl(a> aliivaxoXovOkoaxovwaX-nQeiaaXKaaXkifhcwaXXosApaprlaapapruXbsbpi]v
*ap.icthos avaBalvcaivayxtjavaipko
\avb.Kupai. avaxpafaavaxplvu avaKVTTU [180

^avairipwu

airohvw

&vairl7rT<i>

kiroptoi

*avao-elw

*airopia

avao-raais

dirocrxao)

avfip

awoo-TtWca

hvdio-rqpj.

airbaroKos

avOpwros

awoaTpkfaa

avlcr-npi

*avvpbxo>

*a.vbi)TOs

&1TTU

avopos

apa

avrtiirov

*aplo-Ttpos

avrl

dpviopai

*&VTiBaWu

apros

avTixtipat

apxi-tptvs

&£«w

&PX«>

avayykXKu

&PXUV

airayca

t&pu/ia

airas

ao-rpatrTU

airepxopai

ao-rpov

dxexw

brevity

to7riffTk«)

arep

a/Kb

S.TOTOS

avoBoivw (*"happen")

aukr/

airodvfiffKU

*avki£opai

airoKpivopai

avrbs

*&iroxv\Lu

bjpaipkca

airoXapBavo)

*&4>avTos

airbWvpi

bjptais

airoKoykopai

&(j>iripi.

*airo\vTpuo-is

axpi

110

THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE

111

^BaWavrtov BaXXw
Bapku BaciXtia
BaatXtvs
*|8woTwc6s BXawp-npeu
*Bo\-h *Bov\€vriis BovXr)Bowbs
*Bpa8vs Bpaxvs
*Bpa<ripx>s yapko) yapl£opai
*yapicKopai. yap7* ykvnpa
ytvviua yrj
yivopai yivuoKtoyvbiarbsybvvypappartvsypattfiypiufnaywfi8k
Set (Ska)
5e£ws
8kpo> Skxopai8iu
8ia

Siaxovtu

tlTTOV, kpu

diaXoyiopos

tipipn)

Siapkvw

eis

8iapepi£<i3

els

Siavoiyu

tiaayu

8iaoTpk<pu

tlakpxopai.

^Siaridepai,

kx

SifiaaxaXos

'Ixarovrapxiis

StSao-xu

kx8ixr\ois

SiSupt,

kxit

Siepprivtvu

kxtivos

t&tarq/u

*kxxpkpapai

(*="be parted")

t&Xeforw

Siio-xvplCopai

kxXexrbs

Sixaios

kxpvxTtjpity

*8txalas

*ixirvka>

8i6n

kxTtivw

SlWKU) '

kx4>thyu

Soxkia

*tKXO>pidO

8b£a

t&a£a

5o£afa>

fiXvlfa

dovXos

\kpBXk™

Svvapai

fe/waifa)

Svvapis

ipvpoaOtv

Swarbs

-\ep<j>o8os

8vo

kv

SwSexa

kvavTiov

ftvStxa

k&v

kvSvu

iavrov

kvO&St

eao)
1[kyyl£o> kytipu kyw, kpov, pod
*k8a<Mca Wvos

kvToXi)ivinriovil-&yw
*t£airiopai. kl-aTroo-TkXXu>

Wos

kj-kpxopai ,

tl

e&yeopai.

etSov

*i^ixovra

dpi

k^iarrjpi

181

112

HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

k£ovOevku

t$iaTt\px

*l<rkyytXos

i^ovaia

*k<l>viSios

'iffrripi.

*4|oiwi&£&>

*tX0pa

ixMs

l&

kxOpbs

kirayytXia

txu

xadtbSu

kraipu

eus

xaOt)pai

*'eirtio-kpxopai.

KaBifa

kirkpxopat

fdw

xadws

krtpuTaM

frTiw

xai

kwl

xaipbs

iiri.Ba.XXu

V

xaiu

kiriywisaxb)

¦frykopai

1[xaxovpyos

tm&iSupi

ij8v

xaXku

kiridvpku

7J/CCO

xoXvtttw

*kiriJ8vpia

rfXws

xapSia

iirUeipai

ilptls

xarb,

*kirtxpiva

¦bptpa

*xaTa.Baais

krfio-xoTrii

ijavxafa

xaraxXivu

kmarpk^a

VXos

xaTaxoXovBtu

*&7r«rx6«

Karai-ibta
tm.Ti.poua
OiCXaaaa
xaTTjyopeu
kirufxavto)
davaros
t/carwr^6&>
*km$k<TX(ii
Bavpa^ia
xtipai
tpyov
6ta.op.at
K&paXi]
*kpjiptuais
OkXripa
K-qpvcrou
ipxopai
OkXw
xXalu
kpUT&b)
Oebs
nXao-is
VtaOiis
Oeuptw
xXaco
kad'ua
*dtupia
-\xXivu
*rb kabptvov
dpr/vku
xoiXia
io-irkpa
Spit
xoip&opat
tTtOOS
dpbvos
xbTTTOpat
in
dvy&Trjp
Kpafaj
iroipaty
*xpaviov
troipos
laopai
xparkci)
*tvtpykn\s
iSov
xptp&vvvpi
tvXoyku
Itpbv
*xper6.\ri
tvpiaxo)
Ixavbs
\xpipa
evrbvws
Ipanov
xpivw
^ebxapiarku
tva
XpVITTU
182
THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE

113

xraopai.

^pipvijo-xopai.

OV

xvkXou)

fpvrjptiov

oi>8t

*XVpiiVU

pbvos

oiSds, oWtls

KVpLOS

pvpov

*
olv

KWXVW

*oi5irw

Kwprj

vtxpbs

ovpavos

vtiirtpos

ovs

XaXeco

vbpos

otlTt

XapBavca

*vovs

odros

Xapwpbs

vvv

oUtws

'*Xafei;r6s

vv£

oirxi

Xabs

fyipos

6(j>daXp6s

\kya>XWos

%vXov

3xXos

*Xiav

b, ii, to

*ira7£s

\oyifopai,

bSbs

firatStvu

Xbyos

olSa

(*= "scourge")

Xoiirbs

olxla

vaiSlaxri

*Mirri

oixovpkvri (oixku)

*iralu

*XvTpbopai

SXos

ir&Xiv

fd/uXeto

*irapirXridti

padrjTrjs

bpoius

*ir&VTodtv

pax&pios

ovopa

irapaBiajfopai

paxpbBev

t&TWS

irapayivopai

paprvpwv

*&&

*Hapa8tio-os

paprvs

birTaaia

TapaSlSupt

paarbs

*oxt6s

*Hapao-xtirli

^paxaipa.

&TUS

irapariOripi

pkyas, ptifav

bpau

*TaptpBaX\u

*6 pdfav

bpyi)

*irapoixiw

*fikOv

*bpOpity

iras

piXXu

*bp6pivbs

irdffxa

pkv

Spos

Trdffxw

pkvo)

6s, fj, S

WOTdffffW

pkpipva

*barkov

irarfeo

pepos

Sorts

7rar^p

pkaos

OTOV

fireipaapbs

peri.

6re

irtpi

peravoia

OTl

*ntpiavT(i>

ph

Oil

vtpiBaXXu

183

114

HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

*irepiKa\vvTU

irpotyiTtixa

OwkXM

*irtpiKVKX6oi

Ttpotytyrris

fowf^rfeo

arepfjroT^w

irpinos

ovvlypi

tirijpa

^irTokopai

*ovvxaOlfa

*iri«pws

¦trip

awxaXka)

TipvirXripi

¦jraiXkw

*o-vvxaTaTWep,ai

viva

*awox'h

tLittw

/rrjp.a

*avwapaylvo/tai

iriaTtvw

ovvTTopebopai

wio-ris

o-b.BBa.TOV

trdifco

xXrjdos

VdXos

aiipa

irXitv

<rdp£

Tap&o-o-w

irXqpbo)

aeavrov

TiTkxVOV

wvtdp,a(-\=" ghost")

o-tXipni

irotku

o-ripeiov

riXka

TOIOSirAXis ToXfo

c-qpepov
Viwdfw &ITOS

friXos tUHihitIs, ri
tIs tl

Tropevopat

o-uairati)

*TTOppi)TtpOV

axbros

T&KOS

*vork

^axvOpoiiebs

rbre

\ieori\piov voiisTpdfts7rpd<rffco

abs
ao4>ia
*o-t6.8u>s aT&ais

frpdxefo Tpktjxa
*TplTOP

irptaBvTkpiovTTpb

\aravpbo) artlpos (*$ artlpa)

Tpiros rvyx&vu
TVTTU

rrpokpxopai

arrfios

*TtpoptXfraM

o-n\pl$ui

*bypbs

¦xpbs

arbpa (*= "blade")

vibs

wpooSoxia

o-rp&Tevpa

vpels

vpoakpxopai

o-rpaTtirrris

fordpxw

vpoatvx^l

*ffTpaTbirt8ov

birb

irpocrevxopat.

arpk^xa

virbSripa

¦KOOQ-'tXto

ail, adv

*6vop,tpv^o-KU

*irpoo-woi.kopai

o-vXXap.Ba.voo

VTOpovri

7rpoo-<j>kpu

ffvpBaivca

viroo-TpkifM

irpoo-<JH)}vkoi}

abv

vo-Ttpka

irpbauirov

awayw

vyf/iaTos

xpoiiirdpxw

awtpxopai 184

vyf/os

THE SOURCES OF LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE 115

lj>7]pi
<biXkw<j>LXi]pa
*4>iXovtinia <j>iXos4>oBkopai
*$bBrfipov (j>bBos
floras <bbpos tjniXaxii4>vXii

qxovtu

yaKpbs

(puvri

iprjXa<j>b.o}

<j>G)s

ifaxil

Xaipca

&

Xapd

&8e

*X«ip«f

&pa

X«'P

COJ

Xpior6s

clxret

Xpows

*arlov

X<L>pa

185

APPENDIX m

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

B

D

E

28 And when he had thus
spoken, he went on before,
going up to Jerusalem.1
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 I
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.3 47 And he was teaching
daily in the tempi?. 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 10: 20-36 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 many, 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;
I and are sons of God, being
I sons of the resurrection.

§ 3. The Apocalyptic Discourse
Luke 21:10, 11b, 120, 13-15, 18-20, 216, 22, 236-260, 28, 34-38

D

E

10 Then said he unto them,
Nation shall rise against
nation, and kingdom
against kingdom;1
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,2
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 for 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;4

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 dayfe of
vengeance, that all things
which are written may be
fulfilled;* 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, until 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:6
28 But when these things
begin to come to pass, look
up, and lift up your heads;

1 Luke 21 : na: and there shall be great earthquakes, and in divers places famines and pestilences.
2 Luke 2r:i2&: delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and
governors for my name's sake.
8 Luke 21:16-17: 16 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.
1 Luke 21 : 21a: Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains;
6 Luke 21 : 23a: Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days!
•Luke 2r:26ft-27: for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. 27 And then shall theysee the
Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
187

118

HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

§ 3. The Apocalytic Discourse — Continued

because your redemption
draweth nigh.1
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.
37 And every day he was
teaching in Ike temple; and
every night he went out, and
lodged in the mount that is
called Olivet. 38 And all
the people came early in the
morning to him in the
temple, to kear him.

D

§ 4. The Last Supper
Luke 22:8, 14-190, 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.
15 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:

E

G

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.4 21 But behold, the hand
of him that betrayeth me
is with me on the table.s
23 And they began to ques
tion among themselves, which
of them it was that should do
this thing.

1 Luke 21:29-33: 20 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 22:0-13 follow.
« Luke 22: 196-20: 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. 6 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 OP 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
thatserveth? is not he that
sitteth at meat ? but I am
in the midst 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.1
33 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 concerneth 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 and Betrayal of Jesus
Luke 22:40-4r, 426-520, 53-540

1 40 And when he was at the
| 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.
2 Luke 22 : 42a: 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 — Continued

D

E

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 multitude, and he
that was called Judas, 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 servant 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,1
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 22:55-600, 6106, 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 affirmed, 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.3
61 And the Lord turned,
and looked upon Peter.
I And Peter remembered the
I word of the Lord,4
62 And he went out, and
wept bitterly.

1 Luke 22:526c: 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 :54&: But Peter followed afar off.
' Luke 22 : 606: 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 OP 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, reviling
him. 66 And as soon as it was
day, the assembly of the
elders of the people was
gatkered togetker, botk chief
priests and scribes;1

I saying, 67 If thou art the
| Christ, tell us.
But he said unto them, If
I tell you, ye will not believe:
68 and if I ask you, ye will
not answer.2
D 70 And they all said, Art
thou then the Son of God ?
And he said unto them, Ye
say that I am.3
1 And the whole company
of them rose up, and
brought him before Pilate.

§ 9. The Trial of Jesus
Luke 23:2-16, 18-220, 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. 3 And Pilate asked him,
saying, Art thou the King of
the Jews? And he answered
him and said, Thou sayest.
4 And Pilate said unto the
chief priests and the multi
tudes, I find no fault in this
man. 5 But they 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.

11 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 arid 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
unto them, Ye brought unto

1 Luke 22:66b: and they led him away into their council,
2 Luke 22:69: But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power
of God. 8 Luke 22 : 7r : 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

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 16 I will therefore chastise
I | him, and release him.
18 But they cried out all to
gether, saying, Away, with
this man, and release unto 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.1 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?

§ n. The Crucifixion
Luke 23:32-340, 35-37, 39-43, 46-49«

32 And there were also
two others, malefactors, led
with him to be put to
death. 33 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.]1
35 And the people stood
beholding.

1 Luke 23 : 22b: Why, what evil hath this man done ?
* Luke 23 : 26: And when they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon of Cyrene, coming
from the country, and laid on him the cross, to bear it after Jesus.
> Luke 23:34$: And parting his garments among them, they cast lots.
192

THE SOURCES OP LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE

123

§ ii. The Crucifixion— Continued

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.1
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, he
| 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,3 stood afar off, seeing
these things.

§ ra, The Burial of Jesus
Luke 23:50-510, 52-560

| 1 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),4

52 this man went to Pilate,
and asked for the body of
Jesus. 53 And 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.

55 And the women, who had
come with him out of Galilee,
followed after and beheld Ike
tomb, and kow his body was
laid. 56 And they returned,
and prepared spices and
ointments.

iLuke 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.
8 Luke 23 :49ft: and the women that followed with him from Galilee.
1 Luke 23 : 51S: 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, 6&-100

And on tke sabbath they
rested according to the com
mandment. 1 But on the first day of the
week, at early dawn, they
came unto the tomb,
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

E

they said unto them, Why
seek ye the living among
the dead?1
remember how he spake
unto you when he was yet
in Galilee, 7 saying that the
Son of man must be de-'
Iivered up into the hands
of sinful men, and be cruci
fied, and [the third day Jrise
again. 8 And they remem
bered bis 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

E

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

1 Luke 24:6a: [He is not here, but is risen:]
2 Luke 24: 1 06-1 2: and the other women with them told these things unto the apostles, n 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 OP LUKE'S PASSION-NARRATIVE

123

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
opened 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 unto 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

D

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 written, 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
until 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-Markan Logion Probably Not Drawn from J
Luke 20:166-18

And when they heard it,
they said, God forbid.
17 But he looked upon
them, and said, What then
is this that is written,
j | I The stone which
i I Ibuilders rejected,

the

| I I The same was made the
I | I 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, 00 ff .
Christology of J, 71 f., 94 f.; death of
Jesus, 47 ff., 72, 95; 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, Synoptic: 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 ., 101
Jerusalem Document: authorship of,
90 ff.; contents, 28 ff., 31 ff., 54, 87 ff.,
116 ff.; date of, 985 definite order in,
27 f., 78 f.; 87; historicity of,_ 99 f.;
independence of, 70, 74!.; 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., noff.
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., noff.; synonyms
in, 59 ff., 61; vocabulary, noff.
Luke, evangelist: literary habits, 6ff.,
19 f., 89; purpose, 5, 99; viewpoint,
74 f-
Luke, gospel: characteristic language,
62, 66 f.; editorial additions in, 15 f.,
87; peculiar materials of, n ff.
Luke 19:1-27, part of P source, 32 f.,
7Sf-
Mark, gospel: relation to J, 101 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,
101
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 tuj„i „t t«-,._ . » .
o , *• -j t Tnal o£ 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 iff.;-
¦ repetition, 63; syntax, 64 f . World-view of J document, 70 ff .

198

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05118 1858