was not in document MK to influence the thought of Matthew, and as an editorial addition is quite as likely to be subsequent to Matthew as from him. Indeed, the evidence of the passages just examined seems to necessitate the conclusion that Matt. 21:43 is from a later hand, unless it also be attributed to document M, and that document be supposed to have held wholly isolated sayings of a contradictory content, sayings which Matthew in turn incorporated without editorial insight. Against the supposition of such a procedure, there is the strong testimony to the possession of penetration and skill which appears abundantly elsewhere in the editorial product of the evangelist.1 8. REASONS FOR THE LOSS OF LIFE GOSPEL MT 16:25 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. DOCUMENT MK 8:35 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it. GOSPEL LK 9:24 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. Document MK contains the phrase "and the gospel's" which is not present in either Matthew or Luke. There seems to be no reason why they should have omitted it, if it were present in the copies used by them; there are many very strong reasons why in that case it should have been retained by them. This whole paragraph in document MK, MK 8:34-9:1, was apparently interpreted as referring to the persecutions under the mission, and the phrase "and the gospel's" was intended as applicable to that mission. Why did Matthew and Luke omit it, if present? The obvious inference is that it was not in the original MK, but is an addition by a later hand. As such, it is another indication that "life" in this paragraph of document MK was interpreted as referring solely to the body, and that the loss of life was taken to mean its death under persecution in the prosecution of the mission. To this interpretation there has been attributed already the attachment of the two sayings of Jesus in MK 8:38; 9:1. The evidences seem to accumulate that the mission as actually wrought out had a reflex influence upon those sayings of Jesus which lent themselves, in a lesser or greater degree, to being interpreted as though intended by him to refer to the mission. 1 Other sayings in the documents, in definition of the extent of the mission, are examined on pp. 342-52. In the portion E, document MK has "for my sake and for the gospel's sake;" gospel LK has "for the kingdom of God's sake;" gospel MT has "for my name's sake." The simplest explanation of these differences seems so be the supposition that the original document MK read here, as in MK 8:35, "for my sake." This Matthew rewrote as "for my name's sake," and Luke as "for the kingdom of God's sake." Subsequently there was added to document MK the phrase "and for the gospel's sake," as also, on less doubtful evidence, in MK 8:35. The tendency to interpret these sayings about renunciation as stating conditions of participation in the mission seems to be exhibited again in this paragraph by the addition in portion G of the words "with persecutions." Neither Matthew nor Luke give any evidence that these words stood in their document MK; they seem to be the product of the experiences of the early community. This supposition does not assume that Jesus did not both foresee and forecast persecutions for his followers, for there is abundant documentary evidence that he did, for example, document P §20 and document MK 13:9-13. The surmise is simply that what Jesus predicted led, when it was realized, to the unconscious modification of portions of other sayings of Jesus which were not intended by him to refer to this particular subject. The dropping of the repetitious portion F by both Matthew and Luke is in accordance with their literary treatment of the graphic but non-essential elements in their document MK. The Matthaean addition in portion B is natural as a definite introductory question to precede the specific reply of Jesus which Matthew alone records in portion D. The differences already noted are significant in themselves, but trivial compared with that which is established between Matthew and his source MK by the presence of portion D. From whence has that saying come? The words of Jesus as recorded in document MK define the rewards of discipleship in terms which are applicable to all disciples in all ages. The rewards in portion D are limited to twelve men. Had the rich young ruler, who occasioned these sayings, renounced his wealth, as suggested by Jesus, he would have had no part in certain special privileges which could not extend beyond a circle equal in number to the tribes of Israel. Prerogatives of the first order belong to the first Twelve, but not to later apostles like Paul, it would seem. For all others who fulfil these conditions of discipleship there is the reward of "a hundredfold now” and “eternal life." The twelve are exalted to the very highest plane of recognition and notable privilege. Is this what Jesus told the Twelve at other points in his career when they were disputing as to place in the future kingdom which they confidently expected was not far from realization? Did Jesus regard the assignment of place as within his power, or did he assert that these things were determined by Another? Whenever self-seeking or self-advancement was manifest in his disciples, on whatever basis, what was the attitude of Jesus toward it, apart from the present passage D? Did Jesus take the occasions of the ambitious questions of his disciples as opportunities to depict their future glory, or is the testimony of the documents to the effect that he turned these occasions into times for defining most clearly and searchingly his own conception of the true road to greatness? This portion D, which is unsupported by document MK, is vividly and unhesitatingly eschatological. And it belongs to the Gospel of Matthew. What has been found true of such portions in preceding examinations? Shall it be held that Matthew drew this saying from document M? Then that document had eschatology everywhere in its structure, and wherever it can be tested by comparison with another document it is peculiar to M. If the saying was preserved in M, the circle which handed down M apparently gave an eschatological trend to the words of Jesus at very many places, treasured his sayings on the eternal validity of the Law, defined the mission of Jesus and of his disciples after him as for Israel only, and had the conviction that in the day of Last Things the tribes of Israel would be judged by those who were the first disciples of the Messiah. This is a consistent and unified body of ideas; but can it be affirmed with confidence whether they are those of Jesus, or those of document M, or those of the evangelist Matthew, or those of editorial workers upon the Gospel of Matthew? That these ideas, at least in the passages already examined, are not from Jesus, except that on the Law in part, seems to be established by the comparative study of documents. That not all of them are to be attributed to document M is supported by the appearance of some of them as isolated sayings in narratives which could hardly be transmitted in parts only. That Matthew did himself rewrite certain sayings, of which we have a threefold record, in a form much more certainly eschatological than that given him by his document, has been put beyond doubt by examination. In view of these facts, perhaps one may hesitate to assert confidently, on the basis of portion D above,' that Jesus depicted the Son of man as sitting on a throne of glory in the regeneration, surrounded by the Twelve exercising judicial functions over the tribes of Israel. GOSPEL MT 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. IO. THE TWO AEONS For when they shall rise from GOSPEL LK 20:34, 35 The sons of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. X By the Lukan modification of this document MK saying there is brought distinctly into view one of the contemporary conceptions, x namely, that of the two aeons, the aeon of the present and the aeon that was to come. Associated with this contrast of the two aeons there was a body of ideas quite distinctly defined, which covered a theory of the future in its various aspects. It is of importance to 1 For an examination of a somewhat similar saying in gospel LK, see pp. 221-25. determine whether, either by choice of phraseology or by explicit statement, Jesus showed himself in sympathy with this world-view and its important implications. It has certainly taken a very firm hold in this portion of the Gospel of Luke. That it was not derivable from document MK at this point is evidenced by the document itself and by its Matthaean use. Whether, however, the idea of the two aeons is so truly a part of the mode of thought of Jesus that there is here nothing more than a transfer of it to one additional place must be the subject of subsequent investigation. That the evangelist Luke believed that Jesus thought and spoke in terms of the two aeons seems clear from his treatment of this saying. In that particular, his judgment may or may not have accorded with the facts.1 $7. RESULTS OF COMPARISON OF GOSPEL WITH DOCUMENT Not all of those passages in which gospel shows departure from document, in reporting teaching of Jesus on the future, have been brought under review on the preceding pages. But there have been considered enough instances to exhibit certain apparent tendencies in gospels and documents. Those passages not yet considered will appear, at one point or another, in the subsequent topical treatment of the several themes which make up the teaching of Jesus on the future. Before passing to these themes, there may profitably be brought together, in a summary way, some conclusions which seem to follow from the comparison of gospels with documents. 1. In general, the comparison of the Matthaean P with the Lukan P results in the establishment of the fact that the Matthaean P has been frequently modified; and that this modification takes the direction, either of conforming sayings to history as wrought out before the tradition took literary fixedness, or of giving to sayings an eschatological cast. This eschatological tendency can be detected in the Lukan P occasionally, but much less often than in the Matthaean. 2. Additional study tends to confirm the conclusion stated under paragraph 3 in the summary of $5, namely, that no final and determinative worth may be attached to the order of narratives and setting of sayings in the document P. 3. The eschatological trend which was found, in the compariI See pp. 250-56. |