tances which led
up to them. Instances of this are--The Lord's Prayer (Matt. vi. 9-13
and Luke xi. 1-4); the treasure and the heart (Matt. vi. 19-21 and Luke
xii. 33, 34); God and Mammon (Matt. vi. 24 and Luke xvi. 13). It would
therefore seem plain that either one evangelist or the other altered
the places of these discourses. Examination makes it equally plain
that the alteration was made in Matt. Much of Matt. is arranged in
numerical forms, and this is especially true of those passages which
are not derived from Mark. The numbers 5, 10, and 7 are used as helps
to memory. Thus in Matt. we find _five_ chapters (called by the Jews
"Pereqs") of the sayings of our Lord, ending respectively at vii. 28;
xi. 1; xiii. 53, xix. 1; xxvi. 1. The {26} number five was a favourite
number with the Jews in such cases; thus we have five books of the
Pentateuch, five books of the Psalms, the five _Megilloth_ or festival
volumes, and the five parts of the _Pirqe Aboth_. In chs. viii. and
ix. we have a collection of _ten_ miracles, in spite of the fact that
three of these miracles are placed elsewhere by St. Mark and St. Luke.
The petitions of the Lord's Prayer are arranged as seven, there are
_seven_ parables in ch. xiii., _seven_ woes in ch. xxiii., and the
genealogy of our Lord is arranged in three _fourteens_. As these
numerical arrangements are specially characteristic of Matt., and
certainly appear to be caused by a desire to aid oral repetition, we
are led to the conclusion that the Logia are to be found in a less
artificial and therefore earlier form in Luke. We are also led once
more to the conclusion that though we cannot say that the whole of
Matt. owes its form to oral teaching, yet many sections of it are
moulded by oral teaching.

It must lastly be noted that although the collection of Logia employed
in Luke contained much material which is also found in Matt., the
parallel passages vary considerably in style and language. Examination
of these passages seldom enables us to prove what expressions were
specially characteristic of the Logia. But we can assert with a fair
amount of confidence that the version, or versions, of the Logia so
employed, had a simple and Hebraic style; and that whereas Luke has
kept the order of the Logia better than Matt., the latter preserves the
style more faithfully.

In addition to Mark and collections of the Logia, St. Matthew and St.
Luke employed other sources now unknown to us