regarded as the watchword of these messianic movements, by which they stirred the people and gained their many adherents-"The time is at hand." So thoroughly had it become associated with these messianic movements of the Jewish war, so deeply had it made its impress upon the mind of that generation, that Luke feels no hesitancy, it seems, in supplementing his document by the assertion that Jesus himself did forecast this watchword, and gave it to his disciples as a part of his warning against these uprisings. For the very general "I am he" of his document, Matthew substitutes the explicit "I am the Christ." In view of the notable reticence of Jesus, throughout his ministry, as to any announcement or recognition of himself in explicit terms as the Messiah, it is to be believed that it is not without significance that document MK here represents him as avoiding the term even where it is most difficult for him to do it and make himself understood. The Matthaean substitution has failed to take account of the striking method of Jesus. When it is recalled that in the whole history of his ministry Jesus never takes the initiative in designating himself as the Christ, and that on one or two supreme occasions only does he permit the appellation to be connected with himself,' it will be felt that even this apparently slight interpretative expansion of his document by Matthew gives an unwonted cast to the thought of Jesus. It is significant that a study of the synoptic passages, in which "in my name" (portion A) and like phrases occur, reveals the fact that this terminology is generally unsupported either by a comparison of document with document or of gospel with document. To exhibit all the facts here would involve considerable digression, but the appearance of the phrase in the document M conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount is a part of that apparent accretion; the tendency may be seen further by comparing Luke 21:12 with document MK 13:9, and Matt. 19:29 with document MK 10:29. It appears again in the unauthentic Mark 16:17, a testimony to its currency in the apostolic age. May it be that its presence above in portion A is to be attributed to the same tendency, the words of Jesus being simply, "Many shall come, saying, I am he; and shall lead many astray”?

Of the other portions above, it is to be observed that the portion E is the Matthaean rewriting of document P §60 (Luke 17:23), a I MK 8:29; 14:61, 62a.

section which Matthew here begins to distribute in this discourse, as is testified by portion F and beyond, elsewhere exhibited in full.' This rephrasing of Luke 17:23 (portion E) is of very great interest and critical importance as showing how the actual development of events affected the terminology of the evangelists in places where, for one reason or another, they were called upon to rewrite their source. In place of the indefinite "Lo, there! Lo, here!" of Jesus, Matthew substitutes the two places which history showed to be the centers of the activity of the messianic claimants.2

When one comes to the portion C directly from an examination of Josephus, its reading produces one dominant impression, namely, that what is here credited to Jesus as prophecy was actually fulfilled in every particular during the years before A. D. 70. The words of portion C would serve as a compact summary of the references in Josephus that are scattered over many pages. Another impression, almost as notable, is that this portion, by its particularity in prophetic details, stands in marked contrast to the comprehensive but simple forecast in portion A and again in document P §60 (Luke 17:23)= document MK 13:21 gospel MT 24:23. This contrast at once suggests the inquiry whether the portion C is the product of the experience of the disciples working upon and elaborating the more simple and suggestive forecast of Jesus. Given that comprehensive but very general forecast, given the actual experience of the years before the destruction of Jerusalem, it would seem difficult for the tradition of this forecast to retain its original, general form. The tendency would be toward precisely such additions as the present portion C contains. The probability of certain additions seems to outweigh the likelihood of accurate and unelaborated transmission. The phenomena of portion E, which we are able to test objectively, witness to the reasonableness of this contention.

To these considerations, prompted by the comparison of the accounts, there is to be added the entire absence of the portions C, D, from the Gospel of Luke. It is possible, indeed, to hold that, since Luke omitted document MK 13:21 because he had used it from document P §60, he considered portions C and D so evidently an elaboration of the thought that he dropped them also. On the other hand, I See pp. 64-67. 2 See point 5 in summary on p. 160.

it is worth while to take into account, in view of evidence previously accumulated, the consideration that here again Luke's document MK may have been wanting in elaborations which found a place in document MK before it reached Matthew. To the general thought of other portions there is added by portion C the "false prophets." How large a part these played in the early apostolic age is witnessed not only by Josephus but also by certain other passages in the gospels which are traceable to the editorial work of the evangelists. "False prophets" are one of those factors in the apostolic age which are recognized and recorded by Matthew in his editorial portion on the persecution of the disciples.' It is the "false prophets" who are the subject of the eschatological addition to the Sermon on the Mount supplied by document M. In brief, wherever they are mentioned in the gospels the passage is under question for other, weightier reasons.

Against the appearance of the plain term of contrast, "false Christs," in this portion C, it is not necessary to do more than recall the objections raised to the Matthaean change in portion A, objections which hold with much greater force against the unmistakable intent of the antithesis in C. The reference to the use of "signs and wonders" by the false claimants seems to suggest the experiences of the actual history. It is not known that the claimants in the lifetime of Jesus resorted to these expedients, though they may have done so. It will be held in mind that this portion C designation of the early community as "the elect" has already been seen in the document M accretion to the parable of the Great Supper or Marriage Feast, and again in the apparently late addition to the sayings about the destruction of Jerusalem, document MK 13:20. It does seem that both the minor and major evidences, internal and external, converge to make it difficult to regard the portion C as a part of the original utterance of Jesus on the rise of messianic claimants.

Whether one shall hold that the portion D also is an accretion depends upon one's conception of the prophetic vocation, so far as the test is internal only. The saying seems to make Jesus assume the attitude of a confident prognosticator. The disciples are given a "beforehand" intimation of "all things;" they have but to "take heed" at the danger points, and "the end" will be reached in safety. Such

1 See pp. 145-47.

an attitude in Jesus seems like a movement to the lower levels of prophetic activity.

The total demand of the evidence brought forward to the present seems to be that within the final discourse there be recognized two references to the rise of messianic claimants. The first appears at the opening of the discourse as document MK 13:5, 6, within which the phrase “in my name" has, perhaps, an origin other than with Jesus. After the forecast of the destruction of Jerusalem these claimants are mentioned again, in the terms of document MK 13:21= document P $60. To the latter there came to be added, at some later time it would seem, the precise and specific terms of the present document MK 13:22, 23. These were taken up by Matthew, and to them he added from document P §60 that which was really the parallel to document MK 13:21. Recognizing this parallelism, he rewrote P §60 (Luke 17:23) as the above portion E. Luke's only editorial work lay in the addition of the portion B, and in the omission of document MK 13:21 because it had already appeared in his gospel from P $60.

87. EVENTS BEFORE THE SIEGE OF JERUSALEM

As the study of the rise of messianic claimants has involved examination of the opening declaration of the discourse, document MK 13:5, 6, there may now be considered those sayings which follow this messianic reference and precede the sketch of the persecutions, namely, document MK 13:7, 8 and parallels, which deal with certain external situations that are to develop before the crisis, in the form of the siege of the city of Jerusalem, is itself reached.

Of the several events which are set down as preceding the siege of the city, no one is so strikingly dramatic, extraordinary, and supernatural as that which is reported in the portion E, in the words "there shall be terrors and great signs from heaven." But it seems evident beyond doubt that the portion E was not present in the document MK; it is an obvious addition to what was obtained from that source. From whence did Luke derive the portion E? Were one to make answer conjecturally, on the basis of the results reached in the examination of previous paragraphs of this discourse, it would be affirmed that this is an addition originating in the course the history actually took; that is, a reflection from experience. But has such a conjecture any basis in the known facts of that period?

Among the facts of primary importance, those having significance enough to be given mention in the prefatory outline of his history, Josephus names "the signs and wonders that preceded the destruction of Jerusalem." He makes general mention of them again in the course of his narrative:

There were also such omens observed as were understood to be forerunners of evil by such as loved peace, but were interpreted by those that kindled the war so as to suit their inclinations.2

In connection with the arrival of the Idumaeans as allies of the Zealots he reports:

A prodigious storm broke out in the night, and violent winds with very heavy showers of rain, and continuous lightning, and terrible thunderings, and extraordinary noises as of the earth shaken by an earthquake. These things were a manifest indication that some destruction was coming upon men, when the system of the world was thus put out of joint, and any one would guess that these prodigies portended some great calamities.3

But it is when Josephus draws nearer to the close of his history that he brings together, in one showing, that series of events, scattered over some years, to which he referred in his preface. That which prompts him to their enumeration at this point is his desire to set them over against the "signs" which were offered by the false prophets and false Messiahs:

Thus were the miserable people led astray by these deceivers, who falsely said that they were sent by God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to

I War, Preface, 11.

2 War, ii, 22, §1.

3 War, iv, 4, 85.