The saying is definitely related to an event in document MK; can the same be said of document P? Is faith asked for in P in order to be able to forgive an offender seven times, P $54? If so, does the kind of power in faith which Jesus describes meet that moral need? Does the designation of the disciples as "apostles" suggest that this introduction, portion B, is of late origin? Does "the Lord," portion C, suggest the same? In connection with the withering of a tree (portion A), would it be more natural for Jesus to define greater power by reference to a greater act on a like object (portion C of document P), rather than by reference to the removal of a mountain (portion C of document MK)? What relation does what follows in P §56 bear to this saying? Luke seems to have believed that P and MK refer to one event, for, having used P §55, he omitted MK 11:20-25. Matthew, on the other hand, finds a place for P by substituting it, modified by MK, at Matt. 17:20 for MK 9:29.

This is a pregnant saying which, from its very nature, one would expect to find repeated in the discourses of Jesus. In document MK it is part of a strong and searching definition of the conditions of discipleship. But is it intelligible in its P context? There it cannot possibly mean more than the life of the body, it would seem. And even restricted to that, what meaning has it in the light of that context? Have its two parts any real relation to the conditions which that paragraph is describing? Does this appearance of the saying in a context so foreign indicate that, at the most, it received in the early apostolic age an application to the body alone? And does this account for the addition to this saying in document MK of other sayings of Jesus which really were intended by Jesus to have reference to persecution, namely, MK 8:38=P § 20 end?1

1 These and related questions are considered on p. 130, n. I. In that connection there is brought under review the words of document P §60, "But first must he suffer many things and be rejected of this generation," words which deal with a subject treated by Jesus in document MK 8:31; 9:31; 10:33.

21. THE LAW OF INCREASE AND DECREASE

DOCUMENT MK 4:25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.

DOCUMENT P $64

I say unto you, that unto every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him.

DOCUMENT M 825

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away.

This saying appears in documents M and P as an integral part of the parable of the Pounds or Talents. It is quite as intimately bound up with the paragraph in which it appears in document MK. In all documents it has reference to the use by the disciples of their

As the records now stand, this saying has a place in two widely separated and very different contexts. In document MK it is a part of the final discourse on the future; in document P it occurs in a paragraph which is connected with the answer of Jesus to the question of the Pharisees about the coming of the kingdom of God. Evidently the saying refers in both settings to the same future condition, a historical situation seen and forecast by Jesus. Is it to be regarded as a repeated saying, spoken under different circumstances and as a part of different prophetic utterances? Or is it possible that between P§60 and the thirteenth chapter of document MK there is some historical relationship which has been obscured by the settings of document P? Was P §60 so certainly spoken as the outcome and continuation of the situation in P §59 that it would be an act of historical violence to separate them and assign them to different occasions? Is it true that the bond between P $59 and P §60 goes deeper than the presence in both of the phrase "Lo, there! Lo, here!"? Are the document P settings of the sayings of Jesus as a whole so historically convincing that a time relationship must be conceded to exist between the saying to the Pharisees in P§59 and that to the disciples in P §60?

23. THE DAY OF THE SON OF MAN DOCUMENT MK 13:15, 16

And let him that is on the housetop not go down, nor enter in, to take anything out of his house: and let him that is in the field not return back to take his cloke.

DOCUMENT P $60

In that day, he which shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not go down to take them away: and let him that is in the field likewise not return back.

In document MK this saying is applied to the destruction of Jerusalem; in document P it forms a part of the vivid description of the day of the Son of man. To which of these is it more appropriate? Can any reasonable meaning be found for it in its document MK setting? Does the siege of a city come upon men so suddenly, and at once so shut off all opportunity for provision in behalf of flight that men must simply stand fixed in the spot where they are when the dread hour falls upon them? Does an army arise as by magic and surround a city even while the farmer is absent from the city upon his farm, so that he may not return from the field except at the risk of his life? As an integral part of the intended portrayal of the day of the Son of man, primarily characterized by suddenness and instantaneousness, this saying is intelligible and most impressive. It seems difficult to affirm the same of it when made a portion of definite instructions as to a mode of procedure in the time of the siege of Jerusalem. The evangelist Luke seems to have felt the incongruity of the saying in its document MK context, for he rewrites it at that point in such manner as to frame really practicable injunctions for a state of siege, Luke 21:21. Ought the presence of this saying in document MK to be regarded as another indication that there is some historical relation between the discourse in P §60 and that in the thirteenth chapter of document MK? The fact that the saying is preserved in this discourse of MK, despite its lack of relation to the immediate context given it there, suggests strongly that the saying does belong to that discourse, and needs only some shift of location within the discourse in order to be fitting and intelligible. But where in that discourse as it now stands in the thirteenth chapter of document MK can the saying be placed with satisfying results? That document P§60 and the thirteenth chapter of document MK should have two sayings in common, and that one of these is appropriate to P but out of place in MK, seem hardly to be without some real significance as to a historical relationship between these now separated portions. The evangelist Matthew certainly thought that they ought to be regarded as parts of one discourse, for he distributed P §60 through his report of this final discourse, Matt., chap. 24.1

1 For an exhibit of the distribution, see pp. 64-67.

f

85. RESULTS OF COMPARISON OF DOCUMENT WITH DOCUMENT

At the opening of the section on the comparison of document with document, it was proposed to bring under review all passages which occur in more than one document. This has now been fully done. It was said that such a comparison would yield results bearing directly upon the teaching of Jesus about the future. That this is the case will become more apparent in subsequent discussions. At this point, however, there may be summarized certain constructive suggestions which have resulted from the comparative study.

1. Wherever documents G and MK have material in common, and thus a basis for comparison, document G makes the impression of being nearer to the facts than document MK. The document G record of the message of John, of the opening method and message of Jesus, of the manner in which Jesus attached followers to himself, of the location of the saying about "what measure ye mete," all seem to be more intelligible and historical than those of document MK.

2. At such points as it is possible to compare documents G and M, the superiority seems to be on the side of document G. The Beatitudes of M have a form which it is more natural to regard as derivative than that of G; M presents a larger number. In the contrasts with the Old Testament law, G seems the more faithful in preserving the hard sayings, but is less orderly than M. To the contrast of the good and the corrupt tree M appears to have given an eschatological addition.

3. All indications tend in the direction of lessening the worth which is to be attached to the order of events and the setting of sayings as they appear in document P. The introductions which that document supplies to both narrative and discourse have elements which suggest a late rather than an early period in the history of the tradition. 4. Certain sayings which are hardly intelligible in one document have such a setting in another that they are easy of understanding. It seems fair to assume, therefore, that these are not repeated sayings, but sayings which in the context where they are difficult of interpretation are not in their true setting.

5. Certain parables seem to have found a place in two different documents, but in each document contain elements not appearing in the other. These extra elements seem to be additions adapting the

parable to the setting given it by the document, or additions adapting the parable to the seeming tendency of the document, for example, the eschatological trend of document M.

6. That there is an eschatological tendency in document M finds X support not only in these apparent additions to parables, but also in the eschatological conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount, and in the same type of close to the discourse against the Pharisees. If, further, there be made an examination of such parts of document M as have not yet been brought under review, it will be observed that it is this document which supplies the most extended eschatological statement found in the Synoptic Gospels, M §26, and that it reports two parables from Jesus, the reputed interpretations of which by Jesus are wholly eschatological in content, M §§15, 18.

7. There are evidences within several documents of the tendency to be affected by history as it actually developed. Thus document MK represents John the Baptist as promising that the Christ would baptize with the Holy Ghost; it credits to Jesus as his opening message a statement as to impending crisis which is not derivable from the definitely placed sayings of Jesus previous to the latest period in his ministry. Certain non-paralleled portions of the reports of the parables seem to be the outgrowth of the desolation wrought by the Roman war. The persecutions suffered by the early Christian community seem to be reflected in the tendency to interpret the sayings of Jesus about the loss of "life" as referring solely to the death of the body, and in the consequent addition to these sayings of other sayings of Jesus, spoken on a different occasion, which have power to steady the believer under persecution, for example, the attachment of MK 8:38-9:1 to MK 8:34-37. Shall it be said that the great length of the last Beatitude in document G, its future tense while the other Beatitudes are of the present, its use by the evangelist Matthew, although he already had its equivalent in the last Beatitude of document M, all are the results of the actual history of the early community? Did the desire to find, in the words of Jesus, comfort under drastic persecution lead to the repetition of those words under forms closely adapted to the experiences actually being undergone? And when the words came to take literary form, did they retain these adaptations ?