TABLE OF CONTENTS §2. The Extent and Nature of the Documents $3. The Literary Principles of Luke and of Matthew §4. Document compared with Document $5. Results of Comparison of Document with Document § 1. Absence of Political Background from the Gospels. § 2. Political References and the Poverty of their Content § 3. Evidences of the Interest of Jesus in the National Life § 4. Occasions and Forms of the Political Forecast made by Jesus § 5. Absence from the Records of an Adequate Basis for Jesus' Fore- THE RISE OF MESSIANIC CLAIMANTS AND THE DAY OF § 1. The Time and Method of the Destruction of Jerusalem, and § 4. A Grave Peril to the Disciples in the Future-the Rise of Mes- § 5. Resultant State of the Disciples, and Consequent Demand for a 87. The Single Theme and Its Relation to "the Day of Jehovah" § 3. The Opening Forecast and the Resultant Question . 4. The Persecution of the Disciples §1. Opening Announcements about the Kingdom §2. The Kingdom as Actual in the Present §3. Antitheses to the Kingdom of God $4. The Future in General of the Kingdom CHAPTER I THE SOURCES AND THEIR HISTORY §1. Sources and Documents §2. The Extent and Nature of the Documents §3. The Literary Principles of Luke and of Matthew §4. Document compared with Document $5. Results of Comparison of Document with Document §6. Gospel compared with Document $7. Results of Comparison of Gospel with Document CHAPTER I THE SOURCES AND THEIR HISTORY §1. SOURCES AND DOCUMENTS The sources for the proposed study of the teaching of Jesus about the future are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These sources seem to bear literary relations to one another. Many attempts have been made to solve the problem presented in these apparent relations. If these sources stand to one another in literary dependence of any degree, a study of their content cannot be made with entire disregard of the implications of such a dependence. Conclusions may not be drawn on the basis of three independent witnesses to the teaching of Jesus, if, as matter of fact, any one of them is depend- X ent upon any other for certain portions of his material. Therefore, it is imperative, as preliminary to any study, that there be a definition of attitude toward the Synoptic Problem. It is believed that this problem has been solved, in its main features, by Professor Ernest DeWitt Burton in his monograph, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem. The results reached are stated in these terms: The conclusions to which our whole study has led may then be summarized as follows: 1. Our Mark, or a document in large part identical with it, was employed as a source of both our First and Third Gospels. 2. Matthew and Luke also possessed in common a document which contained substantially the material standing in Luke 3:7-15, 17, 18; 4:2b–13 (14, 15), 16– 30; 5:1-11; 6:20-49; 7:1-8:3; herein referred to as the Galilean document (G). 3. Matthew and Luke also had a document in whole or in part identical with Luke 9:51-18:14 and 19:1-28, which, however, they used in very different ways; herein referred to as the Perean document (P). 4. Matthew also had a document not employed by Luke, chiefly or wholly made up of discourse material. This is presumably the Logia of Matthew spoken of by Papias (M). 5. Additional minor sources there must also have been, the first and third evangelists having, in the main, different ones, as is illustrated in the case of the Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1904. I |