^{page 220 note 1} óλιγον as an adverb of distance only in these two passages in the Gospels (both recounting the calling of the first disciples—see category D).

^{page 221 note 1} The idea of ‘leaving all’ in order to ‘follow’ is confined to these three passages and the Matthaean parallel to Mark x. 28.

^{page 221 note 2} In the active only in these two instances (both in adjacent sections about the Baptist): [δι] απορεϊσθαι (middle) occurs at Luke xxiv. 4 and John xiii. 22. Luke omits (or rather transposes—see category D) the second Marcan section, but shows evidence of having read it by mention of Herod's ‘perplexity’ in his own version of the first.

^{page 221 note 3} The Lucan setting of the Feeding of the Five Thousand at Bethsaida is a well-known crux. The only satisfactory explanation is that accepted above–namely, that Luke derived Bethsaida from the first and last sections of his ‘Great Omission’ (Mark vi. 45-viii. 26), which in Mark follows immediately on the Feeding of the Five Thousand, and which therefore must have stood in his copy of Mark (so Creed, The Gospel according to St Luke (1930), p. 128).

^{page 221 note 4} Another echo of ‘the Great Omission’: a motif from the introduction to the first section of the ‘Omission’ has been used by Luke in his opening sentence at the point where he again picks up the Marcan narrative.

^{page 221 note 5} In other words, Luke has omitted the Marcan section on Elijah redivivus but has used the substance of its introduction, partly as the conclusion to his own version of the preceding Marcan section, and partly as the introduction to his version of the Marcan section which follows. In so doing (we may note in passing) he has reversed the Marcan order.

^{page 221 note 6} Luke offers the same re-writing of the Marcan sentence in the parallel to Mark x. 17 at Luke xviii. 18.

^{page 221 note 7} οι προάγοντες, used absolutely, only in these two passages (both refer to crowds ‘going before’ Jesus). The two sections in Mark are adjacent.

^{page 221 note 8} Once again Luke has omitted (or partly transposed–see category D) a section in Mark but has used certain elements in it to provide a conclusion to his version of the preceding section, which, as it stands in Mark, lacks a conclusion other than the Lord's word.

^{page 221 note 9} Although Huck prints Luke x. 25–8 as a separate section, there is, I think, little doubt that it really goes together with the following section (The Parable of the Good Samaritan), to which it forms the introduction.

^{page 222 note 1} The building up of this summary from a number of heterogeneous elements in different Marcan contexts is more than ordinarily instructive for the student of Luke's editorial methods. For Luke xxi. 37a (⋯ν δ⋯ τ⋯ς ήμέρας ⋯τ⋯ ίερ⋯ διδάσκων) we may refer to Mark xi. 11 καì εìσ⋯λθεν εìς ‘lεροσόλυμα εíς τό íερόν… | 12 καì τ⋯ ⋯παύριον… 15 εíσελθὼν εíς τό íερόν… 17 κ⋯ έδίδασκεν…| 20 καì παραπορυόμευοι πρωΐ… 27 ⋯ρΧονται πάλιν είς ‘lεροσόλυμα καì έν τ⋯ ίερ⋯… xii. 35 ό Ίησοũς έλεγενδιδάσκων ⋯ν τ⋯ ιερ⋯… 38 καì ⋯ν τ⋯διδαΧ⋯ αύτοũ ελεγεν…: for Luke xxi. 37b (τάς δ⋯ νύκτας έξερΧόμενοςηύλίετο εìς τό óρος τό καλοùμενον ε λαιων) we many refer to Mark xi. 11 óψ⋯ ⋯δη οũσης ⋯ρας ⋯ξ⋯λθεν εíςΒηθανίαν… | 19 καì οταν óψ⋯ έγένετο ⋯ξεπορεύετο έξτ⋯ς πόλεως… | xiii. 1 καì έκπορευομ⋯νου αύτοũ ⋯κ τοũιεοũ… | 3 καì καθημένου αύτοũ ές τόρος τ⋯ν ⋯λαιν—for the association of Bethany with the Mount of Olives compare further Mark xi. 1 εíς Βηθανίαν πρός τό όρος τ⋯ν έλαι⋯ν and for Luke xxi. 38 (καì π⋯ς ό λαός ⋯ρθριεν πρός αύτόν έν τ⋯ ερ⋯ άκουεν αύτοũ) we may refer to Mark xi. 18 πάς γ⋯ρ ό όχλος ⋯ξεπλήσσοντο έπì τ⋯ διδαΧ⋯ αύτοũ… xi. 32 ⋯φοβο⋯ντο [the Jewish authorities] τόν λαόν… xii. 12 καì ήφοβθησαν τόν όχλον… xii. 37 καì ό πολος όχλος ήκουεν μυτοũ ήδέως–in particular, for the hapax ⋯ρθριεν we may refer again to Mark xi. 20 καì παραπορευόι πρωι, which follows immediately on statements about the admiration of the crowd and the first retirement ‘outside the city’. It is noteworthy that the majority of these Marcan references have no Lucan parallels in their immediate contexts.

^{page 222 note 2} Thus Dr Jeremias, it seems, would be prepared to explain all the instances in this category in this way with the exception of Luke vi. 12–19 and viii. 19–21.

^{page 222 note 3} It should be observed that, although not complete, the list nevertheless includes some instances which appear to overlap: thus, it may be argued that the first instance in category c is in fact part of the evidence for establishing the validity of the third instance in category D. From my own point of view this is, of course, true. But I have thought it best not to eliminate all such instances from the list, since a charge of extending the list by including in it instances which overlap can only be substantiated in so far as my own point of view is accepted and both instances in any alleged case of overlapping accepted as convincing. Thus, in the case cited above, it is quite possible to be convinced that the presence of όλίγον at Luke v. 3 is due to Luke's having derived it from his reading of Mark i. 19 and yet at the same time to maintain that the basis of Luke v. 1–11 was a ‘special source’: conversely, it is just as possible to be generally convinced that Luke v. 1–11 is a transposed re-writing of Mark i. 16–20, independent of a ‘special source’, and yet to be doubtful about the particular instance of όλίγον: the two instances, therefore, do not of necessity stand or fall together, and each must be judged on its merits.