13),  defines  the  earlier  words,  '  Lead  us  not  into  temptation  ;'
but  temptation  or  trial  does  not  necessarily  proceed  from  the
evil  one,  and  if  the  supphants  require  to  be  delivered  from  the
devil,  they  have  been  led  into  temptation.  These  additions
are  secondary.  In  Luke's  version,  on  the  other  hand,  the
petition,  'Forgive  us  our  sins  (ras  d/xaprtas  rj/xiov),  for  we
ourselves  also  forgive  every  one  that  is  indebted  to  us,'  is  un-
mistakably editorial  (Luke  xi.  4).  The  second  clause  proves
that  the  word  in  the  first  clause  was  originally  *  debts  '  {ra
6(f)£L\7J/jiaTa  Tjficov,  Matt.  vi.  12).  Luke  distinguishes  the  sins
which  God  forgives  from  the  debts  which  are  forgiven  by
man,  and  he  avoids  the  inference  that  the  measure  of  man's
forgiveness  is  equal  to  the  measure  of  God's.
b. — Wendt's  criticism  of  the  fragments  in  this  section  is
exceedingly  unsatisfactory.  (1)  He  rejects  Matt.  vi.  14,  15
as  an  editorial  addition  borrowed  from  Mark  xi.  25,^  whereas
the  truth  is  that  Mark  xi.  25  has  been  borrowed  from  the
apostolic  source.  The  words,  '  Whensoever  ye  stand  praying,'
prove  that  the  precept  which  follows  w^as  originally  delivered  in
a  discourse  on  the  subject  of  prayer,  and  not  after  the  cursing
of  the  fig  tree.  (2)  He  rejects  Luke  xvii.  3,  4,  and  substitutes
in  his  reconstruction  Matt,  xviii.  15,  16, ^  whereas  Luke
xvii.  3,  4  is  demanded  by  Matt.  vi.  14,  15  ;  xviii.  21  ;  and
Matt,  xviii.  15,  1)  is  inseparable  from  ver.  17.  If  ver.  17  is
secondary,  as  Wendt  believes,  the  whole  passage  is  ecclesiastical
from  ver.  15  to  ver.  17.     (3)  He   leaves  Matt.  v.   21-24  in

'  Die  Lchre  Jcsu,  Erster  Tliei),  S.  98.  -  Ibid.  S.  155,  15G.
