Christopher Tuckett
The '0 tradition'. i.e. the material coi~lmon to Matthew and Luke which was not derived h r n Mark,' does not often explicitly quote words from Jewish scripture, at least in the sense of indicating this by means of an explicit intro- ductory formula (e.g. 'it is writte~i').~ Such instances are rare, though not completely non-existent: cf. the replies ofJesus to the Devil in the temptation narrative (Q 4:4, 8, lo),' and also the reference to the composite quotanon (Mal. 3:l and Exod. 2320) in Q 7:27. For the most part, however, 'references' tolewtsh scripture in Q are more often by way of allus~ons, uang s~gn~ficant wards, phrases or ideas that seen1 to have been generated h n i OT language or OT stories, where the reference may well be dellberate on the pan of the 'author'/editor of Q and where such allusions may well have been 'heard' and
'
For the purpose of thr\ essay. 1 assume the sundard Two h u r c e theory AS the u~lunorr to the Svnoptrc Pmblem, tn parucirlar the thcory that the agreements benvrcn Manhew and Luke,whcre such agreetnent cannot be explarned by Lorrunon dependence on Mark. are due to their luvrng irsed a (riou lo.it) conimon source '(2' There a no space here to defend tha m detail rn thrs m y For a full drscussloa of some of the mu= rnvolved. see my Q and t k Hrstory oji;drly Chhruaantty (Ehnburgh T&T CLrk, l%).ch 1 I have sought to defend there the general theory that the Mat- thcw-Luke ayeenrrnts g r n e d y are due to dependence on common source autrrral 'Q', nther than to hrect dependence of one ewngrhst on the other Further. I have argued that 'Q' w a s probably a scnfk (probrhly written) sounc w t h Its owr dvtuicuve featum and chanctcnsucs (111 t n n u of rdc+(), rrtller than berng srrnply an unorphous n u of othenvrsr lnironnc~rcd m&nons whrch were not collected toffetl~cr before berng used by Manhew and Luke Whetha one can or should postulate cdrtronr of Q, or \ m u mqtl~m Q. IS ntorc debatable on thu see nty Q arrd rhc Htstmy, pp 70-75 For the present purpose, I have focused on the 'final' form of Q, I e the for111 of Q 3s 11 wr. urcd hy Matthew and Luke Posvble eirtrer Eornu of Q rnay have cxated, birr rhe focur here wll bc or1 the Q nrrterral as ~t IS most hrcctly aiccsublc to us, I e v13 rts use by Manhcw and LukeTbcw has been lituch &scumon of what d~ould be n p r d c d or deurtbed as a 'quotanon' or 'cltauon' of sLrrpture by a later aud~or For the vtcw thrt the pmcncc or rbscnce of m exphcrt t n d u c t o r y author a cnacal tn tltrr mpect, see C D S t d r y . Paul and f/cc Languap o/ Smpturp
(Carnbrrdgc Can~brrdge Unrvrnrry P r r . 1992). esp pp 15-37 However. on any shawmg, scrrp- mrd texts can clearly he u x d and cchtled 1n leu drrrct ways - by S u ~ r o n s and cchon +( rnuch as by cxphcrt I ruooas or qoouuotu
'
Follownrg what ha? beconre a sundard convcnuon, I crte verses &am Q inmg the prefix Q fallowed by the chapter and vent. rtumberr as they are tn Luke's versron hence 'Q 4 8' mntrs the Q mdrhon reflected rn Luke 4 8 and re Mattherrt panllrl (rn t h s case Matt 4 I(>) There a no presumpnon in thts that the Lukarr wonlmg e inore origtnal 111 any one rnstmceI S A I A H I N T H E N E W T'kS1'AMEN.I
p ~ c ked up by the hearerc/readcrc of Q
'
For esarnplc,(2
,at tlnie, u5rc na~nec of O T figitre\ (e g 'Abel' arlcl 'Zechartah' In Q 11 51, trr '\olonrot~' 111(2
12 27), clearly prt.\uppoc~~~g knowledge of O T ctorles about \uc h figures and rliak~rlg reterence to the\e trad~ttotlr \o too there are referetlie\ to the IA\V ( Q 10 17) or 'the law and the prophet\' ( Q 10.16). to dlvorcc Ieg~clat~on ( Q 10: 1%). to r e g ~ l a t ~ o n \ about tlth111g (Q 1 1 41). agalti presuppoc~ng knowledge o f r ~ ~ m ~ f i - cant parts o f t h e O T and alluci~tlg ilerrly to sotlle cpet lfic deta~l\ C:learly then the relattve lack of expltc~t 1t1tn)ductory forrnul.te ctlould riot be taken a\ all~ t ~ d ~ c a t l ~ t l of lack ~ f ~ n t e r e s t In the O r wtthtn Q
W h c t l ~ r r one ran determ~ne pn.cl\cly whtc11 verston of the OT text the Q edltor rrl~ght have been mo\t fanul~ar *tth 1s not ccrtaln \ Scliulz b n ~ o u r l y trtcct to .argue that the cltatlon\ and rllur~onc to the <IT In at leact prrt of (2 precuppore the LXX ver\rorl of the test
'
I-lowever, In a very cletrtled recpotree In ari extet~ded review art~cle ofSchul7'\ hook, I' i-todin.~nn Ila\ shown con- v~nclngly that the ev~derlcc ava~lable tr ~ n \ u d i c ~ c t ~ t to cleter~n~ne any yrectce text-type In the alluctonc we havc 111 Q " In 5or11e c a w the .allucton ~c too g01er.11 or too ltllprecrce to 111ake deduct~olle about the exact eieta~h of the wordlrlg o f t h e OT tc\t tn~pl~ecl In other tn\tance.r, 'the' 1.XX berctotl ~t\elf ISi t t ~ c e r t a t ~ ~ 111 many case\ too, the LXX verzlon and the M T agree closely .tnd
~t tr I I I I P O S C I ~ ~ C to ~ I ' S ~ I I I ~ I S ~ het\vee~i the111 clearly enough to $2) w ~ t h 'irly cotlfidencc that a c ~ t a t ~ o t ~ or a11t1ct011 111
(2
IS c I ~ \ e r to the t e ~ t - h r ~ l l ofotie a\oppo\ed to the other.
I'roblenr\ about d c t e r r l l t ~ ~ ~ r ~ l r the exlctcrlce and n'ttttre o f c ~ u t t o n c or allu- c ~ o r ~ c to tlie O T 111 Q are oieource exrcerh.~ted by the fact that we d o not llave an extant nlatlrtccrlpt o f Q tt\elf To derernltne the text o f Q , \ \ e have to \\orL backwards ti0111 the texts of Matthew atrd Luke.' 111 case5 where Matthew and Luke agree verbat1111 w ~ t h each other, tile rcion\tructlon of Q mdy be
~tnprobletnat~c Ito\vever, there are rllar~y c a w where Matthew and Luke d o riot agree v e r i ~ a t l l ~ ~ arid hence the wordr~lg of
(2
IS utlc'rtaln In the pre5ent e o ~ ~ t c x t , t h ~ s cat1 111~ke h r \<r111e u t ~ c e r t a ~ t ~ t v 111 r e l a t ~ o ~ l to tile tde~itlficat~on of' W l r e r l ~ r ~ \uitr rclcrctrtrs hdvr h r r l ~ irriluif hv Q Ir o t c o t ~ r i c q t ~ ~ t c rr~orhcr Inrttcr Manv IIU? =cIl gn hc11111d (2 to crrl~cr strgr- 111 tile t m d ~ t l o ~ ~ My I <,llccrrl hcrc I\ \crlcl\ with Q III ILT 'proetrt' 61rrrr lrru~idr till\ 15 re, o\,crrhlz ( ~ N I I T I rlrr t e r n of M~trhe\v rnd Lakc)
' \ St hulz. (1 -- I)tc Spnriltqat~ll~ An 1:1*111ycbsrnr (Lurlch 'I'VZ. 197 1). p 4') (and clscu hcrc In d c u ~ l c d J I \ ~ u \ \ I ~ I I of I I I ~ I Y I J I I ~ I text\) Ttrr\ ~ 4olre of the ir~tcrld % tl\cd by St hulz to iilrtlnkw~\h het\vccrr d~tterrtrt srrrtr u ~ t t t r ~ n (2: hc rot~)rhr to iilvrdc (2 lrrto two rtratr, i-lrrrnllrg that h ~ \ portt~lntcd lntrr
~trrru111 uPr\ \pcitClcally drpctldent (In thr LXX.
Src Hoifrnanr~'\ rcvrcu art~clc o i s c h t ~ l ~ ' ~ hlmk In 8% I9 (1')7i), pp 10-1 -15. r\p pp l08-O'~
E K 111 (2 4 8 , (2 \ c e l ~ ~ s fi>llow r ILXX redcil~~g III h.1v111g '1wn111p the I ~ r n j your (;i]J' 111 thc
~lt.mcrn tr(l)cut 6 1.1 Bur 111 fatt ttrr\ I\ tile r r d d l t ~ ~ i ~ i t > t ~ l y OIIC LXX MS (code\ A) other MS\ of thr 1 XX read 't;rr' inrtcrd ot'wrrrrh~p'. nprrcltrg \vltlt tile M T r h c A K I ~ I I I ~ 111dy be tflc result of i<%~nr~l.rr~on to thr N T tests Scc lriy 'The Te~trptdt~on Nnrrrtrvz I I I (2'. III F Van Segbnxk rt ill . cd5, 7hr f.our (;oipl% 1992 (Fc\trchr~fi F Nctrvlrc k: I3ETI. I(M1. 1 euvcrr Lcuvcr~ Ul~~vcrilty I'rcw - I'ccter%. IL+07). pp J71)-i(17.0~r p. 48.1
" I-or r rr<.elrt attetlrpt trr rcctr~r~trut-t thc wt,niing <,I.() at rvrr) p<r~t,t.'icc J M l i < r t ~ ~ t ~ r < , t > . I' 1 lot511a11t1 dnii J 5 Kloppenhorg, 'Ihr ( : r ~ r r ~ ~ l I<tjtrlots o/'Q (Lcovzr~: Prcten. Mlllneapol~\ Fortre\% 1'rr.s. ZOW)
I'lre v c ~ ~ t t ~ r c IS Lucbl,lc In ~ t \ rtlln. t r ~ r t 1t3 clr~lrtcii rtrolr\ \hr,uld rrot he rcg.mirJ a\ ha\.~rrp r anonlcal stdtr~s w ~ t l t ~ t r (2 %tud~e\' See n ~ y rcvrc\v 1 n / 7 S 53 (2(N)I?). pp ( 2 - 3 1
po\\tble O T allusions In Q. For In the case of a Q trad~tlon where Matthew and Luke d o not agree In wurd~ng, and where a poesrblc OT a l l u s ~ o ~ ~ n:ay be far stronger in the wordlng of one gospel's verslon than in the other, ~t wlll always be trnccrtaln whether the allus~on was already present In Q or IS due to the redact~onal actlvlty of one evangel~st changlng Q. In one key lnstance In relat~on to the questlon of posslble allus~ons to Isa~ah 11: Q , thrs rs an ~rnportant Icsue. as we shall see I ctart however w ~ t h a case where the existence of allus~ons to a number of I s a ~ a n ~ c texts In Q 15 fa~rly unconmvers~al
Q 7:22 records the words of Jesus' reply to the queihorl of John the Baptrst aboirt whether Jesuc 1s 'the one who IS to co111e' (Q 7 18) Matthew (Matt 11 4) and Luke (Luke 7:22) agree almost verbat1111 here; so the presence of a Q tradlt~on IS un~venally accepted," and, further, the reconstruction of Q's word- ing here poses no problems. Further, ~t 1s all but unannnausly agreed thdtJesut' words here - 'the bllr~d recerve thelr slght, the la~rle walk, the lepen are cleanzed, the deaf hear, the dead are ra~sed, the poor have good news brought to them' (NRSV)'" - echo s t r ~ k ~ n g l y a nirrnber of passages fmnl the book of Isaldh." T h e followng parallels are often noted.
'The bltnd recervc thew s~ght'
Isa. 29: I8 'the eyes of the blind WIII see' Isa 35:s 'the eyes of the bhnd wrll be opened' 'The ldrne walk'
Ica. 35% 'the lame \hall leap lrke a dcer' 'The deaf hear'
Isa. 29: 1 H 'the deaf shall hear'
lsa 35.5 'the ears of the deaf [wtll be] unstopped' 'The dead are ra~sed'
Isa. 20:19 'your dead shall Ilve, thew cctrpsec ~ 1 1 1 rite"' 'The poor arc evangehzed'
Isa 61.1 [the one arlolnted wlth the Sprrtt w ~ l l ] 'brtng good new\ to the oppmssed/poor'"
" rlirt rr I>> tlit>re who rcccpt rotlie k,riit of thr Q hypothesis'
9 Iic Nnsv trdnddtiot~, csp~cirlU) 111 the I J S ~ phra\e. perhap hide5 the ripirtr~dn< c (11 the \cor<hng literally the (;reek n 'dte poor rrr cvanglrzcd' (nroyoi cbuyy~Ar(ovrat)
" Ioinc edir~onr o f t h e (,reek N7 rcrtially print thrsr a qt~otntrorr\. e g h) u\ing ~talicr or hold g p r for some or all of thc rlau\c, c f NA" dttd the U B I text, thougl~ t h o d~fTer' NA' i t a h r i r ~ the clrirscs rhotrt the birnd wring, the d e ~ f h e a r r n p m d rhe dcad being raised I hc U U I tc\t hr\ In hold the clairscs about the hltrid rcring rrtd the poor bernp evangelized
" I o the N M \ . follo\wng tarrlv closely the MT I XX ha5 ltvuarqaovrat oi vcwpot wut ByepOqnoviai
oi t v r o i ~ pvqpetoy,cf Q's v~wpot tyct(~t\?ui Q a thu, perhap5 slightl\ closer ro the LXX vervon (though the LXX and M T arc not slgzuticantly drHPrent in quhrancc)
" was\ h a 'opprc\$ed'. 'translating' - aitd 111tcrpreatrgI - the M T oyy. LXX nrcqoi; The Hshreu
ol~1, (a ucll a\ thc Greek nroyor) incarts 'poor' with potmtiall) r 11rer.d and n metrphortr al i ~ t c a r i ~ n ~ powblr
ISAIAH I N T H E N E W TESTAMENT
It seems clear that, in this Q passage, a number of passages h n l Isaiah, many (if not all) of which are expressing hopes for an eschatological future (espe- cially Isaiah 26, 29. 35) are being echoed. Hence the general claim is being nlade by the Jesus of 7:22 that the hoped-for events of the Isaianic expect- ations are being fulfilled in Jesus' present ministry.
Noteworthy too is the reference to Isa. 61:l (the note about 'evangelizing' the 'poor'), which comes at the end of the series of allusions, and as such nlay provide the climax of the whole series. Jesus is here implicitly claiming for himself the role of the figure of Isa. 61: 1 who is 'anointed with the Spirit'. The Jesus of Q 7:22 is thus presented as the one who is the 'fulfilment' of the expectation of the figure described in Isa. 0 1 : l . Whether Isa. 61:l itself was originally intended as a prediction of a filture ('eschatological'?) figure is not certain. It may, for example, have been intended as a description/clairn by/for the prophet himself. Nevertheless, it is now clear h m some Qurnran texts, notably 1 IQMelch, that Isa. 6 l : l was interpreted in the first century as refer- ring to an eschatological figure, and especially to an eschatological prophetic figure." Thus in the text in 1 IQMelch, the text of Isaiah 61 is applied to the prophetic figure of Isa. 52:7, the 'evangelizer' who brings good news to Israel.
Thus the figure of Isa. 61: 1 is seen as a/the eschatological propltet.
Further support for this nlay come h m another Qumran text, 44521, which provides in many respects a striking parallel to this Q verse." Here
too the words of Isa. 61:l (about bringing good news to the poor) are co~nbined with references to giving sight to the blind and raising the dead.
The 44521 text is probably heavily influenced as much by the wording of I'sdm 146 as by other Isaianic texts and it is not certain how much Psalnl 146 has influenced Q here. It is notoriously difficult to be certain who in 44521 is thought of as the agent undertaking all the activities described (of giving sight to the blind, raising the dead, and bringing good news to the poor).
The text is sadly fragmentary and does not allow a certain answer. O n e possibility is God himself. However, John Collins has developed a strong argument for the view that the figure in view here is a prophet, perhaps in the nlould of Elijah.'"
Against this background, the words ofJesus in Q 7:22 g i n further signifi- cance, especially in relation to Christology: Jesus' words here itnply a claim not
'"ec I? Stuhiindclrer, 1k.y pdhrrrwhr Eian~eburn (<;otttnp: Vandct~hoeck Bi Kuprecht, 1968), pp.
142-47; G.N. Stantoo. 'On the Chrlrtolqy oTQ'. in N. L~odars and S.S. Sttralley. eds. (:Itnit and Sprnr 111 the ?i.rtatnent (Festschr~ft <:.I'D. Moule; Cambrtdge: Cambr~dgc Unrvers~ty Press.
1973). pp. 2 7 4 2 . on pp. 30f.; Tuckett. Q artd the History, pp. 2211:; alw D.C. Alhron, I ~ P Irrtntrxh~l Jrsto: Sml~r~cn rn Q (Harr~sburp: Trrtuty Pres Intern.idond, 20CK)),p. 106.
'' On this, see u ~ y 'Scrtpturr arid Q', In Tuckrtt, ed.. 771r Scriprum in rlw Cosprk (NETL 131; Leuven:
Leuverl Untvrrucy Press - Pcctcrs. I'H6). pp. 3-26 (pp. 22-25); A h o n . 7hr Intrrfexn~al./rsw, pp.
111-1.3.
'"
J J ('oll~nr. 'The Work$ of the Mewah', L)SD 1 ( I 994). pp 9%-112, more hrlefly In Calllnr, nrek r p m arrd the Slur Ikr .Cfexsrah.; tire Dead .ka .%mNs arid Other Annetrt Lttmtun (Ne* York I)ouhleddy, 1995). pp 1 17-22
only to be inaugurating the new age predicted by Isaiah; they also imply a clainl that he himself has the role of being the agent who brings about the hoped-for events (the references to the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, etc., are echoing Isaianic texts and also referring to the activities of Jesus himself), but in addition interpret that role as that of the eschatological prophet of Isaiah 61. Thus implicit here is a powerful claim to an (implicit) prophetic Christology.
Q 6:20&2 1 / / l s a . 6 I : 1-2
This overall picture may be buttressed and confirmed by two of the initial beatitudes in Q 6:20-21. T h e situation is rrlore coniplicated here by the fact that Matthew and Luke d o not agree in their wording, and hence the Q wording is not absolutely certain (cf. above). Further, possible Isaianic allusions are rather stronger in the Matthean wording than in the Lukan parallel. How- ever, a strong case can be made for taking the Manhean wording as more accurately reflecting the wording of Q, as we shall see.
Matt. 5:l-11 and Luke 6:20-23 contain four beatitudes in common. Hence it is certain (within the parameters of the Q hypothesis) that Q contained four beatitudes. (The o d e r varies between Matthew and Luke, but this need not concern us here.) For the present purposes, the key evidence is the first beati- tude in both Matthew and Luke, pronouncing a blessing on the 'poor' (so Luke 6:20; 'poor in spirit' in Matt. 5 3 ) . and what appears as the second beatitude in Matthew and third in Luke, pronouncing a blessing o n those who 'mourn' (Matt. 5:4) or 'weep' (Luke 6:21).
There is widespread agreenlent that, in the first beatitude, Matthew's 'poor in spirit' is a secondary change from a more original blessing o n the 'poor', as preserved by Luke." Matthew's different version (with 'in spirit') probably interprets the 'poor' as meaning 'spiritually' 'poor', i.e. a religious, rather than a socio-economic, meaning of poverty.'"hus the Q beatitude promises bless- ing o n the 'poor' and a pron~ise that the Kingdom will be/is theirs.'?~ such, this is widely interpreted as again a possible allusion to the promise/hope expressed in Isa. 6 1 : 1 : the promise to the 'poor' there is being announced arid re-affirmed in Jesus' preaching and teaching.
I' Cf W I) Davro atrd 1) < Alinon. Ihc (,USIJPI arronl~~ig ro L ~ n r Z#aranlrevl. 1 (I( C Edrnburglr I'&1 ('lark, IYHX), pp 442,451, U Lur. ,%farrh~tu 1-7 (Edrnhurglr T& r C Irrk. lCr)O), p 227 Tucken. Q and anhr H~~rory. p 223
'" \uch an Idea n pmhably covered by the Hebrew uortf for 'poor' .I< one por\rhlc rilcalirrig crf thc u ~ r d (ct note 17 abo~e) Matthew lias then ,airply elrnundted .ilrrhrgu~ty hnnr the more open reference to the 'poor' by mterpreclng the word rn one u ~ y ntlrer than thz other (I c a reference to thme experrencrng econonuc or fiturrcr~l poverty)
" The verb n pmhahl) rn the pment ICILU (so Matrheu and Luke, and bcnce pmbahly C)), hut the
force of rt may he wtlr a tuture rrteanlrig a11 t h ~ other heann~de~ pmrr~rre a tuttrrc hle%rrig to tltc various gmtrps niennoned Hence. m th~s t ~ n t heaatude, the retcrence may be the wme
ISAIAH IN THE N E W 'I'EST'AMENT
Thls theory would be slgn~ficantly strerlghened lf a filrther pors~ble allu- slctn to Iw 61 1-2 could be ecabltshed tn the second beat~tude b a n g con- s~dered here Thrc IS falrly readrly done t i one follows the Matthean w o d n g 'Blecsed are thoce who 111our11 (01 X~VBOGVTE~) for they shall be comforted (nupurhq@qaovru~) ' Isa 61 2 states that the task of the one anolnted by the 5p1r1t IS (among other things) 'to comfort all who mourn' (LXX xupu~aAcoui nuvraq robs ncv%odvruq) Luke's verslon IS however not as ver- bally close t o the \vordlng of lsa hl 2 Luke has 'Blecsed are you who weep now (~haiowcq), for you w11l laugh (y&kaa&re) ' I h e s Matthew'c verslon better represent the Q wordlng, rn whtch caw there 1s a ctrong further echo of 1\.11ah 61 111 this beatttude In Q a\ well' O r doer Luke's word~rlg better repre- tent Q, ~n w h ~ c h case the echo o f Icalah 01 IS due to Matthew's redaction In eriltlng the Q version to align ~t rilore closely to the word~ng of lsa~ah 61:
A strorlg care can be nlade for the vlew that Matthew's vemlon IF Inore orlglnal "' F~rstly, one rnav note that Iralah 61 docs not ceem to have been a text that WAF of partlculrr Interest to Matthew Matthew does of course have a general corlcern to relate the deta~lr of the gospel story to spec~fic OT texts, lnclud~ng texts frorrl lsa~ah
''
But nowhere else, In the beatnudes In particular or In hlr gocpel ntore generally. docs Matthew show any trlterest 111 the text o f Ira 0 1 1-2\ e ~ o n d l v , sorne ~peclfic detallc of Luke's verslon In the ~ ~ n n i e d ~ a t e context allay t ~ ~ d ~ c a r e that Luke I \ p r e s u p p o c ~ ~ ~ g a versloll of thlr beatltudc whlch 1s closer to Matthew'F verslon than hlc own 111 pan The ev~dence for thrc conles fro111 the hcoec In Luke 6 24-26 These arc clearly nlodelled on the beatrtudes arld derttc t h e ~ r wordlng fiom them Luke's first woe states that the r ~ c h have already h ~ d t h e ~ r 'consolat~on' ( x u p a ~ h q a ~ v Luke 6 24), perhaps echolrlg a reference t o the promise In the follo\+lng beat~tude In Q that those who n~otrrn/\vrep will be 'conlforted'
''
Further, the woe that corresporu.is pre- clcelv to the beatlnlde about nlourners/weeper\ state5 that those who are ' I ~ u g h ~ n g ' now w1l1nour urn
and weep' (rrcv0fiosrs ~ u i Kkabo&r& Luke 6 25) The presence of two verbs here 1s sl~ghtly clunlsy arld overloaded and may reflect settle redactional lrlterference and/or do.i\~ng S l n ~ e ‘weeping' corres- porrd\ to the mwrd~ng of the Lukan verslon of the correspondlng beantude, and Is also a falrly conlnlon Lukan \wd, ~t may be that t h ~ s a due to Luke's wdact~on, so that n c v O ~ o 111 the woe may be .I vectlge h r n Luke's tradlt~on here T h ~ r the11 gives further \upport to the theory that Matthew's verslon ot the correspondlng beatitude, cpeaklng of those who 'nlourn' belnghtr trrrrrr drrrrlcd d~x-urr~on. $ec Tucketr. Q urrd rlrc Hrirory, pp. 22.%26: Allrvln. 711c Ir~rrrrrxf~wl Jt~ro, p. 105. Thc Matthean wortftng 15 also follo\wd here hy Kob!r~sorr cr trf.. Cnttcitl I:drtton.p. 4X.m
rrcor~structtng the Q tw~rdrrrg.
" ( C the M~rcherrr f~~rrrlul~ qttonrrr,n~. lrrtltrd~np M m . 1.23 = Ira. 7:14: Mart. H:17 = l u . 53:J: Matt.
I ? 18-21 = 1- 42 1-4.
'' Tllere rr tlothrng ~n rhc vr.r\rom ottlle tint bcrtttrrdc wt11<.11 w.ould otlrerwrre cxpialrr thrs rekrencr to ' t orrurlarrorr' In the t w ~ e .