INTERNAL EVIDENCE] things" Luke has “ the Holy Spirit." With these exceptions, the arrreement is nearly em-batim. (13) Mat. vi. 22-23; Lu. xi. 9-13. “The light of the _body is the eye.” Similar in the first part; but varies (seemingly through confusion) towards the end. (14) Mat. xii. 30, 43-45; Lu. xi. 23-26. “He that is not with Me is arrainst Me and he that gatlicrcth not with Me scatteretli,” followed by’ ‘‘'hen_ the unclean spirit goctli forth from the man," &c., nearly ccrbatzm, but apparently better placed by Matthew than by Luke, who has transposed the passage into the neighbourhood of the discourse on_ Beelzebub, moved possibly by the superficial resemblance of subject ("unclean spirit and “Bcelzebub”), not perhaps perceiving that it is the climax of a condemnation of “ this evil generation,” which last words (Mat. xii. 45) Luke omits. (15) Mat. xii. 41, 42; Lu. xi. 31, 32. “The queen of the south shall rise up," &.c. The queen of the_ south is placed by Luke before, by M-attliew after, the “men of Iiiievch;" and in one of the clauses (very curiously, but perhaps with a desire to bring out the antithesis between the “ women" and the_“men ") Luke siibstitntes " the men of this generation” for “ this geiicra- tion," and “ them" for “it.” Otherwise the agreement is almost 'i':."I'b(z(i'ni. (16) Mat. xxiii. 23-39; Lu. xi. 37-52. A denunciation of those who tithed mint and aiiise, yet were the true children of the inurderei-s_ of the prophets. Matthew makes this a part of a long and public denunciation of the Pharisees, in Jerusalem; Luke places it early, and as an utterance in the house of a. Pliarisee, his host. It is certainly _rcmai-liable that here, and nowhere else, a Pliarisee is addressed in the singular number, “Thou blind Pharisee" (Mat. xxiii. 26). The “ l’hai-isee” is clearly.gene_i-ie; but if the use of the singular were niisuiidcrstood, it might originate _a tradition that the speech was delivered to a single Pharisee, in whose house Jesus was dinnig ; and though Luke does not insert the “ Pliarisee,” he may have been influenced by this El'tltll£l(:,ltl1{ll. ii,iisiiiidlcrsta_iiditiiig:. k liitelriial evidtence isLhLl*re lstrongly or i a iews, an agains u es p ace an iinc. uie ias pro- bably been led to place this discouisc at the table of a Pliarisee, by the metaphor of the “cup and platter.” But the metaphor suits Matthev’s version equally well; and it is in defiance at once of good taste and probability, to attribute to Jesus such a denunciation, of a host atvhis own table, and to place it so early in our Lords ini_nistry. the use (Lu. xi. 39) of 6 Kupios (sec bel_ow,_22) makes it probable that this is_a late tradition; and, if it is rejected, there falls with it an accusation brought. against Jesus, of neglecting the deceiicies of life, by coming to a repast with un- washed hands. . The agreement is here by no means 'vc,rbat2'm ; and, pesfidc? othcr diflcreiiges, Matthew has -rb e’u-rbs xaeapurou, where .11 'e ias -r¢‘z e’:/éu-ra 8 -re e')ie-quozrifiunu (a channre, as in the Lord's Prriyer, from the nietaphorical to the real).D The original and .iu:eaii expression ¢m¢>oi‘zs nal -ypa,up.a-re?s Luke alters into the tjliristiaii éurozr-r6Ao_us; he also omits the somewhat difficult ¢r-rau- pcéire-re. “llt is ifas1)eei-illljv lnlotcworthy that, ii'liei'e%s in l)1aittlici’ Jesus says, “ ' iere ore io I send imto you prop ets &c. in Luke Jesus says, “ VVlie,refore, also the lVisd0m if God sciirl, I’will send unto them prophets,” &e. Here Luke probably represents the carli_er form, although the explanation may be doubtful. It is possible that the book containing the ‘_‘ word_s of the Lord," from which Matthew and Luke borrowed this saying, gave to Jesus the name of “the ):Visdoni of God” (cf. 1 Cor. i. 24, “Christ the Wisiloin of God ), and that this title was retained by Luke, but applied, not to_ Jesus, but to the divine providence. Matthew adds to Zachariali the words “son of Baraeliiali ;” Luke omits them. Here again Luke probably represents the earlier tradi- tion. The Zachariah here mentioned was the son of Jehoiada. ButtMatthcw, wtlipse itrianiier it is] to lay elspefiial stress upon all mat ers coiiiiec ei wi i tie prop icts (Sc icn'el’s Bibcl-Lexicoiz “ Sacliaija"),_.ha'iiig in his mind either Zechariah, the son of J ebc: rechiah_ (Is. viii. 2), or Zechariah the prophet, the son of Berechiali (Z:-ch. i. 1), inserted the erroneous words. The agreement here is by no means 1'rrb(zti2iz. Matthew makes the utterance continuous, but Luke (xi. 45), introduciiig a. renionstrance from a “l,awyer," turns the denunciation from the Pharisees to the “lawyers. (17) M:i’t. x. 28-31 ; Lu. xii. 4-8. “Fear not them which kill the body, &e. Instead of Matthew's “shall fall to the earth W1tl10l‘tt.yOl11'lt1.tl1C1'," Luke has the more general phrase, “is for- gotten in tlig presence of _God.” In other parts of the passage icie is eonsi erable dissiiiiilai_'ity. V (18) Mat. x. 32, 33 ; Lu. xii. 8, 9. “ 1) liosoever shall confess nietbelfore men, ’ lee; Not i:c1'b(tlz'm. Besides other diffemnees, 1113 ‘C3,’ Of Matthew s e,u1rpoo'0eu -rou 1_ra-rpés ,u¢_2v, Luke has ep.1rp0o'9eV or eu_w-may -raw a-y-y6}a'w -roi7 Gem”; twice. This expression occurs in another passage peculiar to Luke (xv. 10), and nowhere else. ' (19) Mat. vi. 25-34,; Lu. xii: 22-34. “Wherefore I say unto .§E>11t, T=1l_<_£j« U§1tl‘1(}l1glli, This is the .1s‘econ}d passage (see above, - a . xxiii. ; in. xi. common to Iatt iew ant Luke, intro- (lllcetl by " ivherefore, ’ though the context is dilfereiit. Matthew GOSPELS 799 (vi. 25) i.nti'odiices the passage by a single sentence, to the effect that no one can serve two niasters, God and iiiaiiiinon. Luke, on the other hand, after narrating the refusal of Jesus to become a “judge or a divider,” and after describing in language and thought peculiar to himself (for to Luke alone belong the parables of soliloquy) the death of the rich fool, continues thus: “And IIe said unto His disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought,” &c. The comparison of this passage is most useful as illustrating the difference between Matthew’s and Luke's hand- ling of their subject matter, and also as throwing light on the object (and perhaps on the origin) of many of the parables peculiar to Luke. They seem intended as tales to prepare the way for some famous saying of the Lord as the conclusion and moral. The agreement in language here is not 1:crbatz'm. Besides other ililfe1'ences, Luke changes the 1re'reuI& 7017 oi’/pavoi} into mipakas, moved perhaps by the memory of the ravens, for whom God “provideth food” (Job xxxviii. 41; Ps. cxlvii. 9). But Luke's xal ,u2‘7 p.e-rewpigeaoe, instead of -7) -rl 1repiBaAa5,ue0a, suggests some difference of original text, or some different rendering of the same original rather than a mere alteration. (20) Mat. vi. 19-21 ; Lu. xii. 33, 34. “Lay not up for your- selves ti'easurc,” &c. There is little cxact similarity of language here, except in the last sentence. (21) Mat. xxiv. 42-51 ; Lu. xii. 39-46. “ But know this, that if the goodinan of the house had known,” &.c. In Matthew this sentence comes towards the end of a long disc0ui'se on the second coming, uttercd in Jerusalem; in Luke it is spoken in Galilee, and it is preceded by a. passage peculiar to Luke, and reminding one of the Epistles: “Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning,” &c. With the exception of Matthew stairs, Luke &q>v'§xe (probably the original word), the passages agree almost ccrbalim. (22) Mat. xxiv. 45; L11. xii. 42. “’)'ho then is the faithful and just,” &c. Here there is precise agreement, except where Luke has altered the text with an object. Finding this parable, in the book or tradition from which hc extracted it, connected with the name of Peter, and desiring to distinguish the “ steward" or upper “servant,” who is placed over the household, from the coiiiriion slaves, he (a) inserts a question of Peter, “Speakcst Thou this parable unto us or even unto all?” (b) alters the first Bofmos (“ slave ") into oimw6,u.os (“steward”); (C) alters oine-refas‘ (“lioiiscliold," the true reading of Matthew) into a word with somewhat higher associations, Oepawreias (“ suite ” or “retiniie") ; and (0?) changes auufioibious (“fellow-slaves”) into “the man- servants and maid-servants.” One or two other changes are also made (p.e0i'z¢ncea9ai and 75) to improve the text. Luke’s in-rop.e’-rpiou and ¢’z1ri’a--ram, for Matthew's -rpoqr/1V and {nrorcpi-r¢'I»u, might be early variations arising from the varying translation of some Araniaic original. There remains the curious fact that, in introducing this parable, Luke uses the rare Kl,/pl.0$ (used not as a vocative in speech of address, but in narration), instead of ‘I-qzrofis: “ The Lord said unto Peter.” This is an almost sure sign of a late addition to the Gospels, often of an interpolation. The word Kifipios is not used once thus in the correct text of Matthew. It is not used once in the genuine Mark ; but it is used twice in the short inter- polated appendix to Mark (xvi. 19, 20). In Luke it is used about twelve times, always in prefaces or othcr passages peculiar to Luke, and of these twelve passages three are connected with Peter (xii. 42; xxii. 31; xxii. 61). (23) Mat. x. 34-36; Lu. xii. 51-55. “Think ye that I came to send peace on earth?” The agreement is not verbatim, and suggests two independent translations from an Aramaic original. Instead of Mattliew’s pdxaipav, “ a sword,” Luke has 8ia,uepum6v, “division.” This might either be the divergence of translators (so 3'11‘! is translated in the LXX. both yéxaipa and 1réAe)10s‘), or it might be a maiincrism of Luke (cf. e’-rmn-rur)u6u, ix. 12 ; i,ua-mr,uq3, vii. 25 ; ix. 29, where Matthew has severally Bpa'),ua'ra, iiaiiami, and ipdria). (24) Mat. v. 25, 26; Lu. xii. 58, 59. “Agree with thine adversary," &c. This passage is not Ivcrbation in Matthew and Luke, except in the last sentence. The word {mot-yew in Luke (which Luke as a rule systematically alters or omits whenever it is found in the common tradition of Matthew and Luke [see Mk. i. 44; ii. 11; x. 21 ;1 xiv. 21]) indicates that therein Luke is following some early tradition: but Ka1'aUi'/p‘_I1, -rrpdx-rwp, and Ae-rr-réu (Lul<e’s “ halt'-fartliing," instead of Matthew's "farthing"; seem all later touches added to give graphic variety and climax. (25) Mat. xiii. 33; L11. xiii. 21. “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leavc-ii," &c. Nearly 'cc1'bali'm. (26) Mat. viii. ii, 12; Lu. xiii. 28, 29. “Many shall come 1 It is curious that, in the only passage where Luke agrees with Mark in reading i'/1roi'ye're (Mk. xi. 2; Lu. xix. 30), Matthew differs (xxv. 2), using the word -:ropei5e¢r9cu. There may be noted 3 general tendency of Luke to diverge from Mark, and of Matthew to diverge from Mark, wherever Mark agrees exactly with the narrative (as dis-
tiiiet from the words of the Lord) in Mattlaew and Luke respectively.