Now, tlie argument whicli we are considering suggests that these inserted phrases were originally in Mk., but were omitted or altered bj- a later editor. Is this in the least probable? There is no reason that we can conceive win* the}' should have been omitted or altered. In some cases it is most improbable that anything of the kind sliould have happened, for it would mean the introduction bj' a later editor of harsh or difficult phrases not found in Mt.or Lk. (see§iii. 4(^) above). On the other hand, the theory that the non- Markan source or sources used by Matthew and Luke contained narrative as well as discourses has all the marks of probability, to put the matter at the lowest. See, for example, the non-Markan paragraphs collected in the second division of Wright's S>/))opsi.'i, which contains the narratives of the Temptation and of the Baptist's preaching ; and there are many others. If this be the case, tiie result is exactly what we should expect. Matthew and Luke sometimes follow Mark rather than the non - Markan source ; sometimes one follows the one and the other the other ; and some- times both follow the non-Markan source. Pro- bably no one would have thought otherAvise but for presuppositions founded on the \6~/La sentence of Papias.
But Schmiedel {loc. cit.) finds in certain passages indications of our Mk. being 'secondarj'" to Mt. and Luke. Such are 3^ iravTa d(pedrj<TeTai toIs vioh Tu>v dvdpJsTTojv, where ij Mt 12''"- has avdpunrois, but goes on to say: 'Whosoever sliall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him.' The supposition is that the editor of our Mk. did not like this latter phrase, which had been common to Mt. and the original Mk., and omitted it, but kept the words ' Son of ]\Ian ' by altering the dvdpuiTTO'.s of ^It. to Toh viols tCjv dvOpiJnnijv. It seems much more probable that Matthew got the additional sentence from the non-Markan source ; and Mark's ' sons of men ' as equivalent to ' men,' a common Semitic idiom, is on a par with his other Aramaisms (see § vi. above). In 7^ occurs a piirase, ' Let the children first be filled,' which is not in Mt., and is thought by Schmiedel to be an insertion in our Mk., showing 'some aversion to Jewish particularism,' as toning down our Lord's answer. Yet Mt 8" shows much more ' aversion.' In 9' the phrase 'the kingdom of God come (i\y}\vdvlav) in (with) power ' is thought to be a correction of ' the Son of man coming {ipxoiJ.evov) in his kingdom,' Mt 16'-^, as postponing the Parousia, which the result showed to be not so near as was at first believed. Here Luke (9^) has ' the kingdom of God ' simply, Avliich at least shows no priority to Mark. It is much more likely tiiat ' tlie kingdom of God,' with or without the addi- tion ' come in (with) power,' was our Lord's own phrase, and that Matthew, as is his wont, gives the explanation, no doubt prompted by the belief of the lirst age that Jesus would return in the lifetime of those 'standing here' (see Sanday in Hastings' DB ii. 635). The awkward turn of the wording in 9'-, used above (^ iii. 4 (h)) as an indica- tion of Mk.'s jniority, Matthew smoothing down an awkward phrase, is held by Schmiedel to sliow our Mk.'s 'secondary' charac-ter ; he thinks that our Mk. lias introduced a 'sense-destroying paren- tiiesis' — surely a very strange thing for an alitor to do, whatever an original autlior miglit liave done. In 11^ we find 6 warrip vfiCjv 6 iv roh oipavoh (where || Mt. has 6 tt. v. 6 ovpdvios), the only Markan instance (perhajis 1 1^ of TRis an interpolation) of an express characteristic of Mt.. and it is thcmglit to
be an editorial addition. This argument, however, would necessitate the supposition tliat the first clause of the Lord's Prater, as given in Mt., was an invention of the First'Evangelist, which is very unlikelj-. It is true that the shorter or Lukan form shows nmch of Luke's style, and some of the ditlerences between it and the Matthican form seem to be due to Luke iiimself (see Plummer on Lk 11'), the Mattha;an form being probably nearer the original ; and Dr. Cha.se supposes that the first Christians adapted the prayer for liturgical use (TS, Camb., i. 3). But it is quite unneces.sary to suppose that the phrase ' Our Fatiier which art in heaven ' was first found in Matthew. From Mark's account of the Wicked Husbandmen (12-'*-), wliere one messenger is mentioned on each occa- sion, and then, ' in a quite unneces-sarj- and even disturbing manner,' man}' others, Schmiedel argues, the priority of ^It., where several servants are sent on each occasion. It is liard to see any force in this. Matthew is as likely to have corrected Mark (if it be a correction) as our Mk. to have intro- duced a gi-atuitous inconsistency (if it be an incon- sistency) under the influence of Matthew. In the discourse on the Coming of the Son of Man, after the account of the afflictions, Mk 13-^ lias: 'In those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened,' while |1 Mt. has 'immediately after,' etc. This is said to siiow the j>osteriority of a supposed Markan editor wiio desires to iwstpone the Parousia, as in the case of 9^ (above* ; but as there, so here, it is more probable that Matthew's evdeivs is an explanation, and Mark's iv eKeivais raU ij/jL€pais is our Lord's own phrase, or nearly .so.