We  are  fortunately  able  to  supply  his  demand.  "We  have
hitherto  been  confining  our  attention  to  the  first  of  the  three
synoptists.  The  second  affords  no  assistance.  His  version  of
the  discourse  on  the  Pharisees  is  certainly  an  editorial  frag-
ment :  it  iDrofesses  to  be  nothing  more.  The  parable  of  the
Lamp  occurs  indeed  in  Mark  iv.  21,  and  was  intended,  accord-
ing to  Wendt,  to  supplement  the  parable  of  the  Sower  ;  but
the  parable  of  the  Sower  was  addressed  to  people  who  did  not
possess  lamps,  although  no  doubt  they  had  bushels  and  beds.
They  were  merely  hearers  of  the  word,  and  the  lamp  is  an
illustration  for  disciples.  We  must,  therefore,  reject  Wendt's
conjecture,  which  is  otherwise  quite  untenable.  The  section
in  Mark  iv.  21-25  is  distinctly  editorial  and  of  no  use  in  our
present  discussion.  The  third  evangelist,  however,  is,  as
usual,  when  his  method  is  clearly  perceived,  an  invaluable
source  of  information.     The  following  facts  should  be  noted  :

(1)  The  denunciation  of  the  Pharisees  in  Luke  xi.  42-52
agrees  almost  verbally  with  the  parallel  texts  m  Matt,  xxiii.
23,  6,  7,  27,  4,  29-36,  13.
(2)  One  of  the  sayings  which  Luke  has  substituted  for  the
original  defence  of  the  disciples  (Luke  xi.  39,  40)  occurs  also
in  Matthew's  parallel  context  (Matt,  xxiii.  25,  26).  The  other
saying  (ver.  41)  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  first  gospel,  but
may  be  adequately  explained  as  an  editorial  abstract  from
Matt.  vi.  2-4  and  from  the  teaching  on  the  subject  of  ablutions
(Matt.  XV.  1-20).
(3)  The  parable  of  the  Lamp,  which  according  to  our
argument  originally  followed  Matt,  xxiii.  7,  is  not  far  off  irk
the  third  gospel  (Luke  xi.  33).
