In accordance with a literary principle which Luke follows consistently in the construction of his gospel from his documents, he omits the document MK paragraph from its MK context, since he accepted its insertion in the narrative of the Last Supper. It seems, therefore, that Luke judged these sayings of Jesus to have been spoken on one occasion only. If Luke's decision accords with the history, the reader of today must make choice between the setting of document MK and that given by the Gospel of Luke. The Lukan setting has no support in the other Synoptics; that of document MK is circumstantial, and has been followed by the evangelist Matthew. The evidence seems to indicate clearly that the sayings of portions A, B,C,D were spoken once only, and that the occasion is that recorded by document MK 10:35-40. If this conclusion is correct, it is to be said further that document MK 10:35-45 affords no support for the supposition that the portion E was spoken by Jesus. It is not necessary to hold that the portion E is traceable to the evangelist Luke; it may have been added subsequently by some other hand. In that case, Luke used only that which was supplied to him by his document.

It ought to be observed, as of some significance, that the exaltation of the Twelve through the portion E is followed in the Gospel of Luke by certain modifications of document MK through which one among the Twelve is singled out for supreme recognition. This will be seen by comparing Luke 22:31-34 with document MK 14:27-31, especially in the phrase, "Do thou, when once thou [Peter] hast turned again, stablish thy brethren." The portion E seems to represent a tendency to enhance the estimate of the Twelve, a tendency which finds its ultimate expression in placing Peter as the stable factor in the early apostolic circle-"stablish thy brethren." Further, it ought to be had in mind that the evangelist Luke did not use gospel MT, nor did the evangelist Matthew use gospel LK; therefore, the portion E, if from the evangelist in either or both cases, is independently inserted. Indeed, the variations in the wording of the two reports in E indicate the absence of documentary interdependence. In the case of both gospels, the saying in E may have come in subsequent to the construction of the gospels by the first and third evangelists.

In addition to these external considerations, the saying in portion E by its thought raises the question whether it is probable that it I See the monograph of Professor Burton for the evidences in support of this state

ment.

proceeded from the same mind that defined rank in the terms of the portions A, B, C, D. The ambition for place in the future kingdom expected by them was the most marked and unmistakable phase of the disciples' relations with Jesus from the time they believed him. about to go to Jerusalem. This ambition frequently found the most open expression, both within the circle of the Twelve and before Jesus himself. It was uniformly met and opposed by Jesus in one way, namely, by the definition of greatness in terms which excluded all seeking for place, power, and recognition. By this attitude toward the ambitious self-seeking of the Twelve, Jesus did not exclude the conviction that discipleship had its compensations; but these he defined in such manner as to make them comprehend equally all disciples whether within or without the circle of the Twelve. To these most explicit and direct statements of his thought upon the subject of rank and recognition among the Twelve, Jesus added two parables at some point or points in his ministry, parables the specific and searching purpose of which can hardly be mistaken in the light of the contentions among the Twelve. To the attitude of Jesus as set forth in these passages and parables, and in others of like content, there stands opposed the single instance of the thought in the above portion E. If one considers only the above Lukan paragraph A-E, it will appear that within it there are two opposed points of view, that represented by portions A-D as against that maintained by E. When to these weighty internal indications there are added the arguments adduced from external considerations, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that in the portion E, whether as placed in gospel MT or in gospel LK, there is recorded a forecast of the future of the Twelve which cannot be credited to Jesus.4

1 See document MK 9:33-35; 10: 35-45; document M §27 (Matt. 23:8-12).

2 See document MK 10:28-31.

3 See document P §56; document M §21.

4 It is not without significance that, elsewhere than in the above portion E, Jesus is credited with referring to the kingdom of God as "my kingdom" only in the Matthaean modification of document MK, Matt. 16:28=MK 9:1 (on which see pp. 81-82), and in the Matthaean document, M §15B = Matt. 13:41, where the exposition of a parable is reported (on which see pp. 226–35). The form of promise in portion E, “I appoint unto you a kingdom," is found elsewhere only in the modification of the Lukan P §25 (on the comparison of which with the Matthaean P, see pp. 61-63).

To what ultimate source the portion E on the Judicial Functions of the Twelve, which in the end was given a place in both gospel MT and gospel LK, is to be traced may not be affirmed with any certainty. What seems clear is that it is a product of that same eschatological impulse which, applied now unconsciously and again with a definite aim, has given us the sayings about the Son of Man as Judge of Men (81), about False Prophets in the Day of Judgment (§2), and those with reference to Words as the Basis of Judgment (83).

85. THE FATE OF PHARISEES IN THE JUDGMENT

DOCUMENT P $18

A Woe unto you! for ye build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

B

C

So ye are

witnesses and consent unto the works of your fathers: for they killed them, and ye build their tombs.

Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary: yea, I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation.

In a comparative study of the differing reports by two documents on the discourse against the scribes and Pharisees,' it was observed that the penalty for the course pursued by scribes and Pharisees was recorded in divergent terms by the documents M and P, as represented in the above portion C. Because document M here refers to "the judgement of Gehenna," the passage must have a place in the study of the theme now under consideration. According to document P, that which Jesus forecast, at the conclusion of the discourse, as the outcome of those tendencies represented in scribes and Pharisees, was the ruin of the nation within the time limits of those to whom he spoke, "I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation." As has been seen, this is not an isolated prophecy by Jesus on the future as he saw it, but one of several clear references to the doom toward which the nation was moving under fanatical leadership.

Instead of this most natural conclusion to words of denunciation and warning, document M represents that Jesus had his mind rather

1 See pp. 32-35.

upon an eschatological fate for the Pharisees, "How shall ye escape the judgement of Gehenna ?" That document represents the indignation of Jesus to have found expression in the most penetratingly exasperating personal terms, "Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers." This sounds more like the spirit and method of John the Baptist, indeed, is the repetition of his condemnatory words. It ought to be recalled that similar terms against the Pharisees by Jesus are a part of one of the adapted uses of the paragraph on the good and the corrupt tree, Matt. 12:34, "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things ?" It would seem to be one of the document M or Matthean purposes to represent Jesus as so warmly opposed to the Pharisees that he hesitated at no extreme of designation, and pursued them in thought even into the eschatological region. But the conviction that such actually was the method of Jesus fails to be supported at any point by the external evidence derivable through a comparison of document with document.

Except for the appearance of the Judicial Functions of the Twelve (84) in gospel LK as well as in gospel MT, all references to judgment examined to the present, namely, the Son of Man as Judge of Men (81), False Prophets in the Day of Judgment (§2), Words as the Basis of Judgment (§3), the Fate of Pharisees in the Judgment (§5), are found by comparative study to be apparently the product of Matthaean tendency. By Matthaean as here used is meant that total of factors which has fashioned the features peculiar to the present Gospel of Matthew. It is not intended to distinguish sharply between document M, the evangelist Matthew, and subsequent workers upon the Gospel of Matthew. In no case has the Matthaean reference to judgment come as a part of a supplementary report, but always as additional to sayings of Jesus otherwise reported by documents.

§6. THE SEPARATION OF BAD FROM GOOD IN THE JUDGMENT In addition to the several foregoing contributions from the Matthaean circle to the conception of the day of judgment, there is found in the Gospel of Matthew the exposition of two parables from Jesus, which are assigned to document M §§15, 18. In these expositions there is sketched with vividness the scene of the ultimate separation of bad from good in the judgment.

DOCUMENT M§15

He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that sowed them is the devil: and the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are angels. As therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with fire; so shall it be in the end of the world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

DOCUMENT M §18

So shall it be in the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the righteous, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Are these expositions from Jesus, or are they the expression of the legitimate endeavor by the early community to interpret the parables to which they are now attached, that is, are they explications wrought out by the earliest users of the parables, which in process of transmission, before taking documentary form, came to be considered as from Jesus? Regarded in the light of the history of the tradition of Jesus' words, so far as we know it, the latter supposition is not excluded by any inherent improbableness. Extended interpretation would become attached more easily to the parables than to any other form of the teaching of Jesus. But that it did become so attached may not be affirmed except on the basis of something more substantial than reasonable conjecture.

To surmise that certain expositions may not be from Jesus is not to assume that none of those credited to him are from him; neither is it equivalent to advancing the hypothesis that Jesus spoke parables without any subsequent explication. The problem of the parabolic method of Jesus is not involved in either the scope or the necessities of the present study. Our inquiry is whether certain expositions of two parables are sustained by external and internal considerations as originating with Jesus. Obviously the initial investigation must take account of them as they lay in the document used by the evangelist Matthew.

The procedure of Matthew in the construction from his documents of that discourse in parables recorded in his thirteenth chapter has been traced already in sufficient detail. For convenience of reference, the documentary elements of the discourses may be repeated here: "Document MK §§ 20-24 is supplemented by parables drawn from documents P and M, the order being apparently as follows: MK §20A+MK §21C+MK §20B+O.T. quotation (Principle 8)