The argument from tlie omission by Luke of a Markan section is inconclusive. He had a long section to introduce (§ iii. i (a) above), and it was natural for liim to omit something, to make room for iiis new matter. Tiie section of Mk. is found, in tiie same order, in Mt., and therefore, if this argument held good, it would be necessary to sup]iose tiiat, while Luke used an 'original Mark,' tlie First Evangelist used our present one. Also, two incidents in this section are referred to shortly in Lk., the seeking of a sign and the leaven of the Pharisees (Lk ll'«-'9 12'). The conclusion from 'doublets' is very insecure. There is no reason why there should not have been two Feedings.
2. The hyjiothesis that our present Mk. is an 'edited' form of the Gospel which was used by Matthew and Luke, is in reality quite ditterent from that which has just been considered. For it supjioses that our Second Gospel is very like the original, difiering from it only by the insertion
of a few editorial touches, at the most by the addition of a few paragraphs ; whereas the other hypothesis supposes our Mk. to be entirely ditier- ent from the original Gospel. Dr. Salmon jjro- poses one form of the hypothesis which we have now reached (Introd. Lect. ix. s.f. ). He suggests that our Second Gospel is at once the oldest and the youngest of the three Synoptics ; the oldest as giving most nearly the very words in which the Apostolic traditions were delivered, the young- est as respects the date when the independent traditions were set in their present framework. This opinion is largely influenced by his view that thq Long Ending is really Markan (see above, § vi. ). He supposes that Mark added, besides the first fifteen and the last twelve verses, some other slight jwrtions ; and that the remarks about un- belief 3^ 6"- ^^, which are not found in the other Synoptics, are by the writer of the Long Ending (cf. 16'^- '•''•), i.e. by St. Mark, as the editor of the Petrine Tradition. F'rom an opjiosite standpoint, Schiniedel (Enryc. Bibl. ii. 1844, 1848, 1850 f.) thinks that the canonical ]\Ik. is a later edition, and that several things in it are ' secondary ' to Mt. and Luke. One leading consideration urged by him (also by Sanday, Gusp. m Second Cent. V. § 2, p. 149) is that Mt. and Lk. often agree against Mk. ; therefore, unless the F'irst Evan- gelist knew the Third Gospel, or the Third Evangelist the First (both of which suppositions are confessedlj' improbable), they must have had a form of ]Mk. which is not ours. But this assumes too much ; it supposes that the First and Third Evangelists had no other source (besides Mk.) than a collection of discourses, i.e. that the ' non- Markan document ' could not have been a history parallel to JNIark. As Schmiedel himself rightly says, this assumption is not necessarily true. But if so, his argument, given above, has little weight. There is no reason why Mt. and Lk. should not have got their agreements as against INIk. from the non-Markan source. There is no reason to believe that the latter carefully avoided every- thing contained in the Petrine tradition ; and if it included some things which were in that tradi- tion, there is no reason why Matthew and Luke should not sometimes have followed it in prefer- ence.
As this question of agreement of Mt. and Lk. ag.ainst Mk. is of great importance in forming a judgment about the Second Gospel, it is necessary to consider some details. As examples, it will suffice to give instances fi-om the first few chap- ters: ]SIk 1* irvivfiaTi 0.710;= Mt. Lk. irv. ay. Kal TTvpi ; P\ Mt. inserts rjyepdr) Kai, Lk. dvaardaa ; 1*" and 2^, ]\It. Lk. insert (but in ditterent ways) i5ov ; 2^ (pepovres, Mt. Lk. insert (but in difierent ways) ewi kXIvtjs ; 2'- i^rjXOev ^/xvpoadii' 7rd;'TCi;j' = Mt. Lk. dTrfjXdev eis rbv oIkov avTov ; ib. e^iaraadai. = }tlt. ifpo^-qdyfaav — Lk. €ir\-qcdri(Tav (po^ov ; 2^- 6 olvos ciTroX- Xvrai, K.T.X., Mt. inserts eKX"'''c", Lk. iKxvdvcreTaL, and both transpose diroW. ; ib. dXX' olvov veov, k.t.\., Mt. inserts ^dWovaL, Lk. ^X-qriov, but both come from the /3dXXet (Mt. ^dWovcn.) which had just preceded ; 3^8*, Mt. Lk. insert 'his brother' (Mt. nomina- tive, Lk. accusative), and both transfer Andrew to a place just after Peter ; 3-^, Mt. inserts et'Sws 5e rds evdvp.TjaeLS avruiv, Lk. avros Se eiStbs avrQv to. SLavorifj.aTa ; 4", Mt. Lk. insert yviivai (see above, § iii. i (h)) ; 4^\ Mt. Lk. insert 6v Xa^wc (Lveptawos ; 5'-" TJi/'aro Tov ifxariov avTov, Mt. Lk. insert rod Kpaawi- 80V. The other chapters give similar results ; e.g. Mk W'^, Mt. Lk. insert rts earLv 6 Traio-as ce ; 14^^, Mt. and (?) Lk. insert Kal i^eXdCuv l|cj eKXavaev iriKpw (but see § iii. 4 (/;) above). These changes, or most of them, could not, as Sanday (foe. c;Y. ) points out, have been accidental. The .same cannot be said of tlie great majority of the instances often quoted of
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDIXG TO 135
supposed agreement of Mt.-Lk. against Mk. ; most of them are so minute and unimportant that tliej' do not argue anj- common bond between the First and Third Evangelists except common sense.