8. Document P contains a considerable body of sayings of Jesus about the future which the evangelist Matthew has distributed between two discourses, that on the mission of the disciples, Matt., chap. 10, and that on the future in general, Matt., chaps. 24, 25. Since the former discourse receives from Matthew a wholly forward cast, there is no resultant modification of the thought of Jesus in Matthew's taking-over of the P paragraphs. But it is a question, to be decided by subsequent study, what was the actual occasion of the speaking of these portions of document P by Jesus, P§§6, 20, 22, 27-32, 44B. The absence of contextual relations in many parts of P, and the apparently artificial junctions at some other places, suggest, if they do not demand, some attempt at a redistribution of these sayings.

9. The convergence of several independent results of documentary comparison upon document MK at MK 9:36-50 suggests that the difficulties to interpretation which that portion of document MK presents are the outcome of a certain confusion there of material which properly belongs to other periods in the career of Jesus.

$6. GOSPEL COMPARED WITH DOCUMENT

Document M was used by Matthew only; our knowledge of its limits and form are derivable only from a study of that gospel. It is not possible, therefore, to determine the degree of Matthew's faithfulness in transcription from document M by comparative study. Document G was used by both Matthew and Luke, the former omitting some parts of it. A close study of what both have drawn from document G will satisfy one that the paralleled material is substantially the same in content, that is, both were faithful to their source. Luke used document P as a whole; Matthew used it in part and by distribution. How determine which, if either, was more faithful to his P source? If they differ, there is no external standard to which appeal may be made. Judgment as to which is the more authentic form of any saying taken by both from document P must rest, it would seem, largely on internal evidence, except as such evidence may be corrigible by some discoverable tendency in one or the other evangelist. It may not be asserted in advance which evangelist will have the saying in its more nearly original form. Thus:

Here the same tendency has been at work, now in the one gospel, now in the other. It is the like tendency which in document MK represents John the Baptist as defining the work of the Christ in terms of a baptism "with the Holy Spirit."

In the case of the use of document MK by the two later evangelists, there is an entirely different situation, for we have the document itself as well as the derivative gospels. It is possible to test the faithfulness of Matthew and Luke here with more thoroughness, and almost wholly by an objective standard.

In the comparison of document with document in the preceding §5 there was brought under review every passage which the documents have in common. Obviously it is neither practicable nor desirable to attempt the same in a comparison of gospel with document. It is proposed to study those passages only which contain teaching of Jesus on the future, the theme of the present work. The object of this comparison of gospel with document is the determination of the most authentic attainable form of the sayings of Jesus about the future, if it should prove that gospel departs from document in any particulars. The common faithfulness, in all substantial details, of Matthew and Luke to document G has been affirmed. Though passages have been cited to show differences in the two reports of the document P sayings, it will be evident to one who will make the examination that, for the most part, the divergences of Matthew and Luke in their document P portions are of a minor character, except, of course, in the entirely different setting given them by Matthew. Similarly, if one will go carefully through all portions of the gospels derived from document MK, the dominant impression brought away from such a study will be, it seems safe to predict, a conviction of the essential faithfulness of the evangelists to their document MK. Of the two, it will be found that Matthew stands closer in verbal likeness, on the whole, to our present MK than does Luke. This suggests that

either Luke transcribed from his document MK with greater freedom than did Matthew, or Matthew used a copy of document MK more nearly like the copy which has come down to us than that to which Luke had access. No critical assumption would be less warranted + than that document MK remained static through the period of gospel

formation. Much more probable is it that document MK was in a ✰ more or less fluid state in the years within which the production of the gospels of Matthew and Luke belongs. The preface of Luke testifies to the state of gospel tradition at the time when he undertook his editorial task. We do not know where either Matthew or Luke were produced, nor the length of time that separated the work of the first and third evangelists. Neither can we say with assurance which of the two was brought forth first. Certain internal bases of judgment there are, but these are hardly of a nature to constitute a convincing and final argument.

+

There is need, therefore, constantly to hold in mind that in handling our present Gospel of Mark we are not dealing with a document which is in every verbal detail precisely the document MK used by Matthew and Luke, or by either one of them. That would be to presuppose an attitude toward gospel material in the age of Matthew and Luke which is not only unsupported by available testimony but is in opposition to all ascertainable facts for a period decades after Matthew and Luke.' That which has been said about the document MK in its relation to the present Gospel of Mark and to the gospels of Matthew and Luke holds, with certain modifications, in the case of document P. We know nothing of the history of document P from external sources, and can be sure only that it was current in an age when the gospel tradition was in the process of growth and adaptation. It would be highly arbitrary to assume that every divergence between the Matthaean and the Lukan report on the form of the sayings taken from document P is the result of editorial work by one or the other of the evangelists. Quite as likely is it that document P underwent changes during its history, and that it came to each evangelist with different divergences from the common document which formed the original of the two copies used by the evangelists.

I See Hobson, The Diatessaron of Tatian and the Synoptic Problem, Chicago, 1904.

In the determination of the original form of a saying from document P which is differently reported by the evangelists, while the appeal must be mainly to internal evidence, the judgment so based ought to have grounds other than in the single passage under examination.

If one were to raise the question theoretically, in advance of any examination of the facts, as to what class in the sayings of Jesus was most likely to undergo change and modification in the course of transmission, it can hardly be doubted what the answer would be. Those sayings of Jesus which dealt with the future, especially the future bounded by the lifetime of his hearers, would be less likely to retain the form given them by Jesus than sayings which had to do with other general or particular moral or religious problems. This may be stated another way by affirming that, where Jesus formulated prophetic forecasts dealing with the near future, his words in transmission would be subjected to two strongly modifying influences, the active hopes and longings of his disciples, and the course of history as it actually did develop. That these influences did modify may not be asserted in advance; that they would be likely to modify must be recognized. To suppose modification is not to assume that it must be foredetermined and conscious. Changes in the form of sayings, even very considerable changes, are not always the product of intentional, purposeful modification.

I. The Matthaean Pcompared with the Lukan P

1. THE FAITHFUL AND WISE STEWARD OR SERVANT

LUKAN P $29

A Who, then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall set over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will set him over all that he hath. But if that servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the unfaithful.

A

B

MATTHAEAN P

Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that he will set him over all that he hath. But if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord tarrieth; and shall begin to beat his fellow-servants, and shall eat and drink with the drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the

hypocrites: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Whence the addition found in the Matthaean version, portion B, of the parable? Is it a natural part of the parable? Was the servant hypocritical, or merely unfaithful? Could any man consign another

to the fate implied in the Matthaean addition, portion B? Does that addition arise from the fact that for "the lord" of the parable there had been substituted the Lord of heaven in the mind of the transcriber, and that his thought was fixed upon the return of that Lord rather than upon an accurate transcription of the parable? By this Matthaean addition the parable becomes strictly eschatological in application. It will be recalled that already two parables have been found in the Gospel of Matthew which show eschatological additions when compared with the same parables, as reported in document P. These parables, the Talents and the Marriage Feast, II:C:1, 2 of §4 above, are from document M. The Gospel of Matthew seems, therefore, to have eschatological additions to parables both when those parables come from M and when from P.

2. THE ANTITHESIS TO THE KINGDOM OF GOD

LUKAN P $40

There shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without. And they shall come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

MATTHAEAN P

And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.

What human feeling is expressed by "the weeping and gnashing of teeth" in the Lukan P? Envious anger, is it not? What feeling by the Matthaean P? Physical anguish, is it not? Does not this difference change the thought essentially? The antithesis to "the kingdom of God" in the Lukan P is simply "without;" in the Matthaean version it is "the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth." In other words, the phrase "the weeping and gnashing of teeth" is brought by Matthew into an eschatological service. In the Lukan P it seems to mean no more than it does in Acts 7:54.

Outside of the Lukan P $40, this phrase occurs only in the Gospel of Matthew, where it appears six times. One of these is the above; another is that in the parable of the Faithful and Wise Steward just considered, I:1 above; two more are in the additions to the parables of the Talents and Marriage Feast, § 4:II:C: 1, 2; the remaining two are in the conclusions to the expositions of the parables in document M §§16, 18. Stated by documents, it occurs four times in M, M $$15, 18, 23, 25, and twice in the Matthaean version of document