Votaw, C. W., 173. Widow's mite, 32. Walk thru the corn, 43. Walking on the sea, 55. Weiss, B., 108. Weiss, J., 46, 110, 111, 112. -- on content of Q, 108-10 _passim_, 134, 191, 194. Wellhausen, J., 37, 55, 73, 110, 111, 112, 115. -- on content of Q, 108-19 _passim_, 133, 150, 183, 191, 198, 234, 240. Wendling, E., 74-87, 228. Wernle, Paul, vi, 32, 37, 65, 110, 111, 115. -- on content of Q, 108-19 _passim_, 191, 198, 210, 234, 244, 245. Westcott and Hort, 69. Withered hand, 44. Yeast, a saying about, 57. FOOTNOTES: [1] Mohr, Tübingen, 1906, 3d ed. A fourth edition of this valuable book appeared in 1911, but without important changes. [2] Cf. Sanders, _Journal of Biblical Literature_, XXXII, 184 ff., for evidence that this did not stand in the original text of Luke. [3] This statement may be questioned, as Lk xiii, 18-19 may be considered parallel to Mk iv, 30-32. At all events Matthew has the passage with Mark. The matter is complicated by the fact that the parable apparently stood in both Mark and Q. [4] Tho Lk xiv, 34_a_ is apparently taken from Mk ix, 50_a_, as against Mt v, 13_a_. [5] For discussion of Luke's non-use of Mark thruout the Great Interpolation, see pp. 16-18; for an elaborate analysis of the sources of the section, see Hawkins, _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, pp. 29-59. [6] see Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_, pp. 139-41, for other instances. [7] For an elaborate analysis of the sources of the material in the Great Interpolation, see Hawkins, _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, pp. 29-59. [8] An apparent exception is Lk xiv, 34 = Mk ix, 50; no parallel in Matthew. Lk xvii, 2 = Mk ix, 42, and Lk x, 27 = Mk xii, 30 should perhaps be added, but are not so clear. [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.