[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. [19] Wernle, _op. cit._, p. 6. [20] On the size of ancient books, see Sanday, _Oxford Studies_, pp. 25-26; cf. Birt, _Das antike Buchwesen_. [21] For complete and detailed discussion, see Wernle, Wellhausen, Harnack. [22] See pp. 95-96, where the account of the call of the first disciples is further discussed, and printed in heavy-faced type. [23] P. 30; see also pp. 95-96, where the account of the calling of the first disciples is printed in heavy-faced type and is further discussed. [24] This latter is not the usual word for "bed," but means a _little_ bed--_some_ sort of bed. [25] Agreement of Matthew and Luke in these two corrections is held to show Urmarkus. The need of correction is obvious enough, and the corrections are the natural ones to make. So also Sinaiticus in Mark, with other authorities. [26] Some MSS omit this reference in Mark. [27] P. 21. [28] See Lk iii, 21; ix, 18, 28, 29; xi, 1. [29] See pp. 153, 238-39. [30] _Das älteste Evangelium_, p. 165. [31] For further discussion of this and the preceding section see pp. 239-40. [32] P. 19. [33] Huck's _Synopse_, pp. 80 and 109, will show the verses belonging respectively to the two sources. [34] It is argued later, pp. 234-48, that Mark also is dependent upon Q, but since he has the Q material in much briefer and more fragmentary form than Matthew and Luke, his use of Q does not preclude Matthew's and Luke's preservation of more primary features of the Q tradition. [35] Wellhausen, _Einleitung_, p. 59. [36] For further discussion see p. 241. [37] _Horae Synopticae_, p. 123. [38] A note on this passage by Professor H. A. Sanders says that this is Mark's order in B D (k d c) only. [39] Cf. a similar omission of the address to the waves, p. 48. [40] See Bartlet, "Sources of St. Luke's Gospel," _Oxford Studies_, p. 321. [41] I am unable to account for Matthew's addition that Jesus touched the man's eyes. [42] See p. 244 for further discussion of the saying as in Mark and Q. [43] No reason can be given, so far as I know, for Luke's addition of his xx, 18. Some texts ascribe the same saying to Matthew also. [44] I think I owe this suggestion to Wernle, but do not find the passage in his _Synoptische Frage_.