[9] Chapter and verse for each of these sections being given in the tabulated arrangement of this same material on pp. 24-27, only such references are given here as are necessary to help the reader to follow the analysis at this point.
[10] We do not include here the omission of single words or phrases, or even occasionally of an entire verse, where it is plain that this is in the interest of some change or condensation.
[11] See especially the parable of the Weed in the Field (Mt xiii, 24-30), the Mustard Seed (Mk iv, 30-32; Mt xiii, 31-32; Lk xiii, 18-19), the Sower (Mt xiii, 1-9; Lk viii, 4-8).
[12] Wernle, Synoptische Frage, p. 126.
[13] Thruout this discussion I am greatly indebted to Wernle, as anyone must be who has read his Synoptische Frage.
[14] Wernle includes among these the defense of Jesus in Mk iii, 23-30, practically duplicated in Lk xi, 17-23. Why not a transposition, rather than an omission? So considered here.
[15] Wernle, op. cit., p. 5.
[16] Yet not always. Cf. his two bands of teachers, his healing of ten lepers and of one, his two disputes about priority among the disciples, his three predictions of the passion and two of the resurrection. But cf. his omission of anointing at Bethany, the barren fig tree, the mocking by Pilate’s soldiers, because of their duplications of his material already used. See Hawkins, op. cit., 69.
[17] Matthew takes no offense at this; for he even adds to it, “I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
[18] Hawkins, op. cit., p. 71. It seems strange that Hawkins’ discussion of the “great omission” contains no reference to Wernle’s treatment of the same subject.