In these four parables obviously there are two items which most scholars would agree in calling secondary: the allegorical interpretation of the parable of the Fish-Net, and the entire parable of the Converted Scribe. Yet the parables of the Pearl and the Treasure are as primary as any utterances recorded of Jesus. The strong general similarity in form and content between these parables and those taken by Matthew and Luke from Q argues the probability of their presence in some form of that document. Their absence from the Gospel of Luke indicates their absence from the recension in his hands. And the presence in them of these secondary traits argues their addition to Q at some time after its original compilation. All these considerations make the assignment of these four little parables to QMt in a high degree probable.
PETER WALKING ON THE WATER
(Mt xiv, 28-31)
The presence of so much narrative material in this section argues at once against its derivation from any form of Q. It belongs to a cycle of Peter-sayings preserved in Matthew alone. The source appears to have been a special one, very probably oral.
“TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL”
(Mt xv, 22-24)
These verses are an insertion of Matthew’s into the story of the Syrophoenician woman, which he has copied from Mark. It is worthy of note that thruout the entire story the verbal agreement is much more slight than is usual in narratives, especially such as contain sayings of Jesus, taken by Matthew from Mark. Luke has no parallel. Considering the very slight proportion of narrative, and the great preponderance of sayings-material, in the section, it would not be strange if it stood in Q. If it stood in Luke’s recension, the attitude of Jesus toward non-Jewish peoples, as implied in the story, would be sufficient to account for Luke’s omission of it. The sentiment of vs. 24, in particular, is extremely “primary.” It could hardly have been invented and ascribed to Jesus after his time. Mark’s words, “Let the children first be fed,” tone down the excessively Jewish particularism of Matthew’s account; even aside from these words, which are absent from Matthew, Matthew’s entire version of the incident is more primary than Mark’s. This may be, and has been, explained by saying that Mark’s story has been worked over by an editor, subsequent to Matthew’s use of his Gospel. But since Mark and Q have been shown to coincide in a certain amount of material, a simpler explanation is that they coincided in this story of the Syrophoenician woman; the more primitive character of Matthew’s account is then explained by its dependence upon Q, which is older than Mark. It cannot be shown to have been absent from Luke’s recension, and its presence there may be probable, but cannot be demonstrated. It is therefore assigned—but with some hesitation—to QMt.
A SUMMARY OF JESUS’ HEALING WORK
(Mt xv, 29-31)
This little summary, like that in Mt iv, 23-25, would naturally be ascribed to Matthew. It might be regarded as a re-working of Mk vii, 31, and a substitute in general terms for the story which immediately follows that verse in Mark.[112] The use by Matthew of such a phrase as τὸν θεὸν Ἰσραήλ would be explained by the fact that the cures are represented as being worked outside of Jewish territory. With this explanation the verses may be ascribed to Matthew.