| 53, 58-59 | 42-46 | 46, 51-53, | | | | | 58-59 | | | | | | | |18-21, 28-30,|34-35 |18-21, 24, | 2 | 9 | 34-35 | | 28, 29, 34, | | | | | 35 | | |16-24, 26-27 | |16-23, 26-27 | | 10 | | | | | | | | | | |3-10 | |4-7 | | 4 |13, 16-17 | |13, 16-17 | | 3 |1-4, 23-37 |24, 26, 27, 34 |1, 3, 4, 6, | 4 | 14 | | | 23, 24, 26, | | | | | 27, 31-35, | | | | | 37 | | | | | | | |12-27 | |26 | | 1 | | | | | |-------------|---------------|--------------|------|------ | 255 | 80 | 201 | 80 | 201 ----------------------------------------------------------- Somewhat more difficult to understand is Weiss's assignment of two hundred and forty-eight Q verses to Matthew against only one hundred and seventy-four to Luke. He has here in common sixteen fewer verses than Harnack and Hawkins assign in common to Matthew and Luke from Q. But he also assigns to Matthew seventy-four Q verses not paralleled in the Q material which he assigns to Luke. The difference goes back again to the difference of opinion as to the degree of literary similarity which must be taken to indicate a common source; as also to Weiss's interest in the special source (S) of Luke. If we deduct from Weiss's Q in Matthew the twenty-eight verses after which he places an interrogation mark, this will leave him with only forty-six Q verses in Matthew unduplicated in Luke. This is only ten more than Wellhausen has.