[119] Unless this should be regarded as a gloss, which would not so well account for its awkward position. See Sanders, Journal of Biblical Literature, October, 1913.
[120] Oxford Studies, Introductory Essay, pp. xx-xxi.
[121] See pp. 8-9, 16-18.
[122] Holtzmann’s suggestion that Luke omitted the Mark section because it ends with the second feeding of the multitude—implying the same sort of omission by mistake as is often made when two lines end with the same word—seems strangely insufficient.
[123] Why does Luke have two laments over Jerusalem, as well as two missions of the disciples, especially considering his apparent avoidance of duplicates?
[124] This last, quite inappropriate alike in the mouth of Jesus and as a part of his parable, becomes, in the mouth of Luke, a pathetic commentary upon the difficulty of preserving the Christian faith while waiting for the long-delayed parousia.
[125] The soliloquy in the parables of Jesus is introduced by Luke alone. The dialogue, tho more frequent in Luke than in Matthew, is not restricted to him.
[126] Sanday, Oxford Studies, pp. 25-26.
[127] Pp. 129-206.
[128] So Wendling. Stanton also says Mark’s connection is better with Mk vi, 45-vii, 23, omitted.