relations with them had his disciples been as ready as now to give a receptive hearing to any word from him about the future. Indeed, as to the graver sides of the future, it may be affirmed that, judging from their inability to take Jesus' sayings about his death seriously, they would have given no heed to anything Jesus might have said previous to the present-in which the shadow of the tragedy hung over them. The occasion to which the discourse of Jesus on the future is assigned by document MK is, therefore, the most fitting in his ministry.

§2. INFLUENCES AFFECTING THE SAYINGS OF JESUS ABOUT THE FUTURE

In any study of the reported sayings of Jesus about the future, the interpreter cannot too often remind himself that he is dealing with that body of material which is more likely to have suffered modification in the course of transmission than anything else which finds a place in the record of the life of Jesus. That this likelihood is a matter of fact in certain parts of the documents seems to be a conclusion suggested by studies made in chap. i. But ought such a conclusion to be expected in connection with a study of the thirteenth chapter of document MK? Because of the fact that it deals with the future, independent of any other consideration, it was open to the effects of time and varied opinion in transmission. But when to this general consideration there is added the all-important recognition that this discourse deals, for the most part, with future events which were to fall within the lifetime of the generation of Jesus, it is clear that there is some probability of more or less modification in the sayings. For they were "sayings," not written prophecies. Even had Jesus given them literary form, the history of interpolation in documents exhibits the danger to which they would have been subjected. Had they immediately taken written form, some check might have been given to modifications. But the transmission of sayings as to the future, and the actual unfolding of that future, went on side by side. It seems inevitable that the latter should affect the former. It seems unavoidable that the sayings should take on the precision afforded by the actual experiences. Further, it was to be expected that, during the fluid period of the sayings of Jesus about the future,

they would take on phases suited to the solution of new problems arising during that period. Whether, as a matter of fact, these natural and inevitable tendencies affected the report of this discourse of Jesus, as they certainly would have affected the forecast of any other person, may, perhaps, be determined by a close examination of the discourse. Such is the purpose of the present study.

The opening statement from Jesus, in portion B, does not go beyond the destruction of Jerusalem; indeed, only by implication does it include the city as a whole, for the words prophesy only the ruin of the Temple. The question of the disciples, as reported by document MK, confines itself to that event of which Jesus had spoken, and asks simply when and how the ruin of the Temple is to be effected. In this the evangelist Luke closely follows his document. But Matthew substitutes for "these things," of portion D, the phrases, "of thy coming (apovoía), and of the consummation of the aeon," in portion E. He is concerned to represent the disciples as inquiring of Jesus for a complete eschatological programme. It may not be affirmed that Jesus did not give such a programme simply because it was not asked for by his hearers. But it is to be recalled that "coming (rapovoía)" is credited to Jesus in this discourse only, and that its three appearances here, Matt. 24:27, 37, 39, are in portions drawn by Matthew from document P §60, where the phrase of Jesus

I

is not "coming (πapovσía) of the Son of man," but "day of the Son of man." The former is a Matthaean term. Similarly, the phrase consummation of the aeon" is peculiar to Matthew, in which gospel it occurs four other times, Matt. 13:39, 40, 49; 28:20, three of which instances are in the exposition of two parables drawn from document M §§15B, 18. These expositions are among the striking eschatological features which so singularly characterize that document." Even were it certain that "coming (apovoía)" is an authentic term from Jesus, given at some point in this discourse, it would have to be considered whether the disciples could have asked about its time before they were taught to expect it as an event of the future. It will hardly be held that the idea of some "coming (πapovo ía)" formed a part of their present conception of the future of Jesus. Every indication that the gospels give of their hopes seems against such a supposition. In the light of these facts, it would seem that portion E must be regarded as another evidence of the strong eschatological interest of the Gospel of Matthew. The notion of the Two Aeons has been seen elsewhere as an accretion to the words of Jesus.3

$4. THE PERSECUTION OF THE DISCIPLES

In the examination of the discourse, it seems best to give consideration at the first to that section of it which has the most extensive gospel testimony, though this leads to a departure from the order of the discourse as now recorded in document MK. That section is the portion dealing with the persecution of the disciples, MK 13:9-13, which Matthew used from document MK in his construction of the discourse on the mission of the disciples, Matt. 10:17-23, and again, in part, in the final discourse, Matt. 24:9-14. Luke used it once only (Luke 21:12-19), but had in his document P a section which is closely related to a part of this Markan paragraph, P §22=MK 13: 11. Thus there is provided for this body of sayings about persecution a synoptic testimony unsurpassed in volume by that on any other subject in the recorded teaching of Jesus.

1 For Matthew and document P in parallelism, see pp. 64-67.

2 An examination of these expositions is made on pp. 226-35.

3 See p. 57, paragraph 3, and p. 95, paragraph 10.

Not only do document MK, gospel LK, and gospel MT (tenth chapter) record a succession of ideas in the same order, idea for idea, and in closely similar, often precisely the same, language, but these ideas form a unit; they have a single theme; they are closely knit

together. To the accuracy of this statement there is a single exception, the portion C. This verse interrupts very seriously the course of the thought. "And the gospel must first be preached unto all the nations"-what relation does that bear to what precedes or to what follows? "First"-does that mean before they have been delivered up to councils and have had the other experiences of portion B? Hardly possible. Does it mean before they have the anxiety spoken of in portion D? Equally difficult to understand. Apparently the thought of the verse is out of place here. Can it be given a place elsewhere in the discourse? In the chronology of the discourse, persecutions are followed by the destruction of Jerusalem, and that destruction immediately precedes the coming of the Son of man. The whole series of events falls within "this generation." This is a complete and consistent order, to which portion C is an interruption and intrusion. It introduces an entirely new element into the time relations of the future, namely, the completeness or incompleteness of the mission -a factor given no recognition elsewhere in the discourse, and out of keeping with those factors that are regarded as determinative.

Moreover, the portion C introduces in a casual way a statement of immeasurable significance as to the extent of the mission. Jesus had not indicated previous to this time, except, perhaps, in a veiled, parabolic way, that the mission was to extend beyond Israel. That his first intimation of so important an intention should be so incidental, so secondary to a chronological interest, is difficult to believe. The verse assumes a knowledge and full recognition of a world-wide scope for the mission. This the disciples surely did not hold. Their sense of any mission, however limited, was vague if not entirely wanting at this time. Such words as these at this time and in this context would be wholly unintelligible. It may not be assumed, for that reason alone, that Jesus would not speak of the limits of the mission at this time. Often what he said was beyond the present grasp of his hearers. It is urged only that, even with its intelligibility assumed, there is here a method of introducing new and far-reaching truth which departs from the skill of Jesus as elsewhere exhibited. It would hardly be possible to overemphasize the historical improbability of such a procedure. Its incongruity fails of its full impression only because the mind is accustomed to think of the disciples as always