[111] Sometimes counted as only seven, the similitude in vs. 52 not being reckoned as a parable. [112] So regarded, apparently, by J. Weiss in his _Schriften des Neuen Testaments_, I, 342. [113] _Oxford Studies_, p. 192. [114] _Oxford Studies_, p. 193. [115] _Encyclopedia Biblica_, col. 1864. [116] _Oxford Studies_, p. 201. [117] The healing of a dropsical man (Lk xiv, 1-6), tho a narrative section, has been considered on p. 201, on account of the sayings in it. [118] Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_, p. 9. [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. [129] It should be said that most of those who argue for Luke's omission of so much Q material assign these sixteen sections to some special source of Luke's. [130] See especially Matthew's "Go not into any way of the gentiles," which might be assigned to Q, with obvious reasons for Luke's omission. [131] Pp. 222-25. [132] See analyses on pp. 230-33. [133] Pp. 222-35. [134] See the reckoning made without inclusion of Marcan Q on pp. 162, 218. [135] Still according to Harnack. [136] _Oxford Studies_, p. 146. [137] See pp. 234-46 for material in Mark and Q. [138] A note by Professor Sanders says, quite correctly, that "The general agreement in translation words requires that one of these translations should have preceeded and influenced the other." THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 64-66 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK University of Michigan Studies HUMANISTIC SERIES General Editors: FRANCIS W. KELSEY and HENRY A. SANDERS Size, 22.7 x 15.2 cm. 8o. Bound in cloth VOL. I. ROMAN HISTORICAL SOURCES AND INSTITUTIONS. Edited by Professor Henry A. Sanders, University of Michigan. Pp. viii+402. $2.50 net. CONTENTS 1. THE MYTH ABOUT TARPEIA: Professor Henry A. Sanders.