together. To the accuracy of this statement there is a single exception, the portion C. This verse interrupts very seriously the course of the thought. "And the gospel must first be preached unto all the nations"-what relation does that bear to what precedes or to what follows? "First"-does that mean before they have been delivered up to councils and have had the other experiences of portion B? Hardly possible. Does it mean before they have the anxiety spoken of in portion D? Equally difficult to understand. Apparently the thought of the verse is out of place here. Can it be given a place elsewhere in the discourse? In the chronology of the discourse, persecutions are followed by the destruction of Jerusalem, and that destruction immediately precedes the coming of the Son of man. The whole series of events falls within "this generation." This is a complete and consistent order, to which portion C is an interruption and intrusion. It introduces an entirely new element into the time relations of the future, namely, the completeness or incompleteness of the mission -a factor given no recognition elsewhere in the discourse, and out of keeping with those factors that are regarded as determinative.

Moreover, the portion C introduces in a casual way a statement of immeasurable significance as to the extent of the mission. Jesus had not indicated previous to this time, except, perhaps, in a veiled, parabolic way, that the mission was to extend beyond Israel. That his first intimation of so important an intention should be so incidental, so secondary to a chronological interest, is difficult to believe. The verse assumes a knowledge and full recognition of a world-wide scope for the mission. This the disciples surely did not hold. Their sense of any mission, however limited, was vague if not entirely wanting at this time. Such words as these at this time and in this context would be wholly unintelligible. It may not be assumed, for that reason alone, that Jesus would not speak of the limits of the mission at this time. Often what he said was beyond the present grasp of his hearers. It is urged only that, even with its intelligibility assumed, there is here a method of introducing new and far-reaching truth which departs from the skill of Jesus as elsewhere exhibited. It would hardly be possible to overemphasize the historical improbability of such a procedure. Its incongruity fails of its full impression only because the mind is accustomed to think of the disciples as always

understanding that they were destined for that kind and that extent of mission which, at the earliest, was a revelation to them from Jesus.

It is important to observe that the central word of the verse is "first;" by this the portion C, as it stands, is altogether a chronological indicator. And as such, it assumes for its hearer or reader a knowledge of the mission's aim, which it uses as an index. The total impression of portion C, when examined from the internal standpoint, is that it is not an original part of this paragraph or of this discourse. To this conclusion there is external support. The portion C seems to have been absent from the document MK used by Luke, for he gives it no place. Similarly Matthew fails to give evidence of its presence when he is using this document MK paragraph in his construction of the discourse on the mission in his tenth chapter. Not only does Matthew omit it; he inserts a reputed saying of Jesus on chronology which directly contradicts it, the portion I, Matt. 10:23. His omission of portion C, in itself, might be explained as intentional, as the result of his use of this paragraph out of its original, document MK connection. But is it to be believed that Matthew, possessed of a document MK containing the portion C, would deliberately drop that definition of the mission's scope, and, instead, represent Jesus as limiting the mission to the cities of Israel, and as coming again even before that restricted field should be covered? On the other hand, if it be supposed that portion C was not present in either the Lukan or Matthaean document MK, the procedure of Matthew is intelligible, and involves no tampering with his sources on this theme. Document MK at 7:27 gave him a definition by Jesus himself of the scope of the mission, which he interpreted as expressed in Matt. 15:24. This he embodied twice in the discourse on the mission, Matt. 10:5, 6, 23, attaching to it, in the latter instance, that promise of the speedy coming which document MK supplies once in the discourse from which the paragraph Matt. 10:17-22 was taken, namely, in MK 13:30, and again, as it seems, in MK 9:1. The evangelist Matthew may be regarded as having made a union of statements from Jesus supplied by his document MK, after interpreting them as best he could, Matt. 10:23, but he may not reasonably and justly be charged

1 For a more complete statement of Matthew's method and view-point in this regard, see the examination of MK 7:27-Matt. 15:24 on pp. 88-92.

either with omitting a fundamental assertion like that in portion C, or with deliberately substituting for it its direct contradiction as expressed in the portion I of the tenth chapter. With the portion C, Matthew seems not to have been confronted when, by the portion I, he was endeavoring to give chronological content to the discourse which he was constructing on the mission. Therefore it must be said that Luke, and Matthew also in his framing of the tenth chapter, worked with a document MK from which portion C was absent.

But how explain the portion I of Matthew's twenty-fourth chapter, which is the complete contradiction of the portion I of his tenth chapter, but a parallel in thought to portion C of the present document MK? As a stage in the solution, it ought to be observed that certain of the difficulties created by portion C, where it stands, do not hold against portion I in Matthew's twenty-fourth chapter. The order of origin seems to be, first Matthew's portion I of chap. 24, then the portion C of document MK. In that order, the obscurities of portion C as related to its context are explained by regarding it as being a scribal rewriting of portion I, at first by one upon the margin of the manuscript MK, but subsequently by another in the body of the paragraph, the latter insertion made with a scribal disregard of immediate context. Thus regarded, the saying was first attributed to Jesus by Matthew's twenty-fourth chapter. But from whence did it come into that chapter? Surely not from the evangelist ← Matthew, who had already several times defined the mission as restricted to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Apart from previous definitions, for him to have inserted it, even as the portion I with its advantages in position over the portion C, would have been to introduce a chronological datum that stands opposed to all the other chronology of the discourse. The editorial work of Matthew, as elsewhere exhibited, forbids the assumption of such blindness to open inconsistencies. An examination of the portions B-H in Matthew's twenty-fourth chapter seems to indicate beyond mistake that this constituted the sole original paragraph. He would hardly have left the exhortation in portion H as it there stands if he had added portion I, for it would then involve the endurance of the individual until the gospel had covered "the whole world."

It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that the portion I of

Matthew's twenty-fourth chapter was added after that gospel had left Matthew's hands. For the appearance of the verse at that point, there is an adequate explanation: The apparent forecast of the discourse as a whole was not fulfilled; the Son of man did not come in X that generation; the outlook of the society of Jesus as to its mission was broadened; another terminus was sought and found. The gospel of the kingdom must first be given to the whole inhabited earth. Thus this Matthaean verse, subsequently taken up as portion C of Mark, had an origin similar to that of another Matthaean. verse of equivalent content, Matt. 21:43, also unsupported by document MK and the Lukan use of document MK.1

It would seem, from the evidence, that the gospel tradition, as examined to the present, contains three strata of thought as to the extent of the mission. There is the hint by Jesus, through parable and saying, that others than those of Israel may have a place in the kingdom of God. This outlook may be adequately exhibited summarily by the saying, "Let the children first be filled," document MK 7:27. There is the conception of the evangelist Matthew, as representative, it may be supposed, of a section of the early community, to the effect that the mission of Jesus and his followers was for Israel only, gospel MT 15:24; 10:5, 6, 23. There is the view of the later Christian brotherhood that the mission was for the whole world, as + expressed impliedly in Matt. 21:43, and explicitly in Matt. 24:14. Whether the latter, that is, an explicit statement that the mission is defined by the limits of the inhabited earth, is derivable from words of Jesus is a problem for subsequent investigation.2

Within the above paragraph on the persecution of the disciples there are two portions which take their form from the fact that the content, in whole or in part, of the Markan paragraph had already appeared at previous points in the gospels of Luke and Matthew. These portions are the D of gospel LK and the G of gospel MT. Because portion D of document MK had already been inserted by Luke from document P §22 as Luke 12:11, 12, he recasts this portion of document MK when he is taking over this paragraph, as is at once evident by a comparison. Because the whole paragraph had once

1 On which, see pp. 88-92.

2 See pp. 342-52.

been used by Matthew in his tenth chapter, when he is embodying the thirteenth chapter of document MK he uses only, from this paragraph, the opening and closing verses, portions B, F, H. In the place of the rest of the paragraph he substitutes the non-paralleled portion G. As the Lukan D and the Matthaean G are editorial products, originating from causes which we are able clearly to trace, they have a very high critical value. For within them, it is reasonable to expect, there may be found the expression of tendencies which belong to the age from which they come. If so, these may be used as a standard by which to test certain other sayings of like kind which are elsewhere credited to Jesus.

I

An examination of portion G of Matthew reveals these situations as characterizing the time of that evangelist:

A. Defection of disciples under persecution.
B. The rise of false prophets.

C. The waning of faith in Jesus as Christ.

From a comparison of the Lukan portion D with documents MK and P, it will be seen that, instead of regarding the wisdom of disciples under trial as the work of "the Holy Spirit," it is attributed to the supramundane and post-ascension activity of Jesus himself, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom." It represents Jesus, therefore, as placing a large emphasis upon the personal element, upon himself as the center and power, in the future mission. From these two

1 It is a striking fact that Matthew transposes sayings of Jesus, found by him in his document MK, from the discourse in which they stand in that document, in only five cases; and that, of these five, four are the result of his construction of a single discourse, namely, that on the mission in his tenth chapter. Thus document MK 9:37b becomes Matt. 10:40; document MK 9:41 becomes Matt. 10:42; the transposition of the former results in the use of document MK 10:15 as Matt. 18: 3. The paragraph in document MK 13:9-13 becomes Matt. 10:17-22. The only other instance is the use of a document MK saying in the construction of another discourse, the Sermon on the Mount, where MK 11:25 becomes Matt. 6:14, in order that Matthew may group in this place the whole body of sayings in his documents about prayer.

Of these five instances, there is one only that is of such length and so intimately bound up with the discourse in which it stands that the unity and completeness of the discourse is destroyed by its removal, namely, MK 13:9-13. Therefore this is the only case in which Matthew, having used a portion once from document MK, feels obligated to repeat enough of it to keep the connection, namely, the beginning and the close of the paragraph. For the rest of it he substitutes related facts from the actual history of the mission.