These we may call his Marcan and his Logian document.
The instances in which he has departed from the Marcan order, and the manner in which he has introduced his additional matter into the Marcan outline, do not suggest the idea that he had any independent knowledge of an exact kind of the chronological sequence of events.
- In the main Luke here follows his Marcan document.
- This is an insertion into the Marcan outline of matter chiefly taken from the Logian document (the Address, Luke vi.
- He begins again to follow his Marcan document for what he gives.
- This is another insertion into the Marcan outline, much longer than the previous one, and consisting partly of matter taken from the Logian document (warnings to men who offer to become disciples, Luke ix.
- Luke again takes up his Marcan document, nearly at the point at which he left it, and follows it in the main, though he adds the story of Zacchaeus and the parable of the Minae (the Ten Pieces of Money), and omits the withering of the fig-tree and some matter at the end of the discourse on the Last Things, which are given in Mark.
It seems more likely that he had a good many distinct oral traditions for this part of the history and that he used them freely, sometimes substituting them for passages of the Marcan document, sometimes altering the latter in accordance therewith.
These two works, the Logia (or, as some prefer to call it, the Non-Marcan document common to Matthew and Luke) and the Mark-Gospel, were the prime factors in all the subsequent composition of Gospels.
The phenomena which are sometimes supposed to require the hypothesis of an Ur-Marcus are more simply and satisfactorily explained as incidents in the transmission of the Marcan text.
The account in Matthew is practically identical with that in Mark and is no doubt taken from the Marcan source, but Luke and John have different traditions.
But it seems probable that this is the motive which led to the redactorial change in Luke, and that the Marcan account, which is traditionally' connected with Peter, ought to be followed.
With his restitution: probably both are of the nature of redactorial guesses, and the Marcan account must be regarded as preferable to either.
Matthew also uses the Marcan narrative, but adds to it a new section from some other source which suggests that the name of Peter was conferred on this occasion - not, as Mark says, at the first mission of the Twelve - and confers on him the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the right of binding and loosing.
The question of the historical character of the Matthaean addition to the Marcan narrative is exceedingly difficult; but it 1 See, however, A.
Besides it is noticeable that in one other point Matthew has slightly remodelled the Marcan narrative.
We know that he saw the risen Lord, and, according to the most probable view, that this was in Galilee; but the circumstances are unknown, after the and we have no account of his return to Jerusalem, as at the beginning of the Acts the disciples are all according to in Jerusalem, and the writer, in contradiction to the Acts Marcan or Galilean narrative, assumes that they had never left it.
He similarly omits the Marcan account of the call of the fishermen, substituting the story of the miraculous draught.
Time after time His life is threatened before the feast is ended, and when the last passover has come we can well understand, what was not made sufficiently clear in the brief Marcan narrative, why Jerusalem proved so fatally hostile to His Messianic claim.
At the same time he brings in additional matter in connexion with most of the Marcan sections.
In the concluding verses of the Gospel, where the original Marcan parallel is wanting, the evangelist may still have followed in part that document while making additions as before.