in B=E+C+D seems to be found in its original form in the portion F, rather than in the peculiarly Matthaean portions A, G, I. The portion H is properly, as is shown by an examination of document G, the beginning of another paragraph in the Sermon, namely, that which most appropriately closes it, an exhortation to "do" in accordance with hearing and profession, document G §17. In document M, the portion H has become wedged between two sayings to which it is unrelated, as will be recognized by an endeavor to interpret G, H, I, as consecutive parts of a unified paragraph. No doubt there is some slight bond of union; to find none would be to charge editorial incapacity to the framers of the document M tradition; but such bond as may be affirmed removes portion H wholly from the historical genesis borne by it as a part of document G.

In addition to the general fact that document M is marked by eschatological additions like those in the above accretions A, G, I, it has been found that the actual experience of the early community with Zealot messianic claimants has led to the crediting of Jesus with forecasts about them which are not to be traced to him. In fact, in the only places where the specific term "false prophets" appears, the verses are apparently accretions. Thus it occurs in the Matthaean editorial portion, Matt. 24:10-12; again in the expansion of the thought of Jesus in document MK 13:22, 23;2 and finally, in the above document M conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount. It has been seen that Jesus spoke definitely of the rise of messianic claimants in his final discourse on the future, document MK 13:5, 6 and 13:21 = document P §60; and further, that the period between his forecast and the destruction of Jerusalem was characterized by many of these messianic uprisings. But all the evidence seems to indicate that the historical realization of the forecast was the occasion of the expansion of document MK 13:5, 6, 21 into the more precise MK 13:22, 23, is the reason why the forecast now appears in the Matthaean summary of the apostolic age in Matt. 24: 10-12, and is the explanation of the adaptation of certain sayings in the Sermon on the Mount so that they became serviceable as an exhortation to use with disciples who showed a tendency to defection under the seduction of these claimants.

If the evidence has been rightly interpreted, it may not be held that the above portion I is from Jesus, and the notion of "that day" of judgment, as there expressed, may not be used in the reconstruction of the real thought of Jesus about the future. Here the notion belongs to document M as used by Matthew, even as the notion of the Son of Man as Judge of Men (§1) is the product of the Matthaean eschatological tendency working upon the document MK. That the evidence has been taken correctly seems sustained further by the examination of another eschatological use, by the Matthaean circle, of the same sayings of Jesus about the good and the corrupt tree, as set forth in the following §3 on Words as the Basis of Judgment.

H

And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

G And why call ye
me, Lord, Lord, and
do not the things
which I say?

G

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. H

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy

name cast out devils, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The above paragraph from gospel MT 12:33-37 is brought under consideration at this time because of the reference in the portion H to the basis of destiny "in the day of judgement." This Matthaean paragraph has no parallel in the other gospels at the point where it occurs. Its nearest equivalent in content of thought is found in the two differing documentary reports of a paragraph of the Sermon on the Mount as above shown. A close examination will make it evident that the three records are apparently variant reports of one body of sayings. What seems like the original paragraph is made up of the portions A, B, C, E of the document G account. As already seen, the portion G is the opening of a new section in document G. In the document M report, the "false prophet" portion A has displaced the original A, the latter being found now as the portion D. Similarly, the original portion E has fallen out in favor of the eschatological portion F; and the portion H continues the thought of A, F. In the case of gospel MT, the parallelism with document G is closer, there being one displacement only, that in which another form of expression supplants the original C. The specific application of these sayings, begun by this new portion C, is developed further by the eschatological addition in portion H. This addition H is wholly unlike the portion H of document M, except that both are altogether eschatological. In brief, it seems that the original sayings of Jesus about the good and the corrupt tree are discoverable in the portions common to two or more reports, namely, AAD+BBB+-CC+EE—. As a genuine part of another body of sayings there is the portion -GG. For the pur

pose of using these sayings as a polemic against "false prophets apparently there was wrought into their texture the portions A, F, H of document M.

Shall it be affirmed of the gospel MT 12:33-37 report that the portions C, H are a similar endeavor to use these sayings as a searching condemnation of the Pharisees, that is, an application of them that does not historically go back to Jesus himself? Judging by the results of the comparison of document G with document M this seems highly probable. From whence was the paragraph Matt. 12:33-37 derived? This is an important question in a gospel whose construction from documents can be followed with reasonable assurance almost throughout. Shall it be said that Matthew, finding these sayings in document G §15 and again in document M §14, decided to retain the latter report in its assigned place as part of the Sermon on the Mount, but to give the former a place as our present paragraph? Then the portions C, H are editorial, and need not be taken into account in framing the teaching of Jesus. The portions C, H are not derivable from document M §14, the only common thought being a general eschatological one. Or, as another possible explanation, shall it be said that the paragraph Matt. 12:33-37 was supplied to Matthew by document M as an independent complete paragraph? Then document M had two paragraphs of substantially the same general content, one of which was a part of a long discourse, the Sermon on the Mount, and the other of which stood in complete isolation. The assumption that it stood in complete isolation is based on the fact that it is possible to trace with impressive clearness the method and course of Matthew in the framing of the whole discourse reported by him in 12:22-45 from documents MK and P, except the paragraph 12:33-37. Indeed, there is no considerable section of the Gospel of Matthew that better exhibits in convincing detail the use of his documents by the evangelist than 12:22-45. It is not impossible that document M twice reported these sayings, once as part of a discourse, and once in isolation, but it seems highly improbable. And if it were true, it would impose yet another eschatological burden upon the document M, as exhibited in the peculiar portions C, H. But it seems unreasonable to think of these as part of document M, for they have their utility only as portions of

1 See pp. 18, 19 for a statement of the combination of documents in 12:22–45.

the complete paragraph 12:33-37 where the thought is directed against the charge of the Pharisees that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub. In other words, the paragraph 12:33-37, as it stands, could hardly come down except as part of a larger narrative. Without such larger context, what intelligibility would portions C, H have? On the other hand, the sayings in the portions A, B, C, E of document G §15 could live and be transmitted independently; and in such form were likely to be given definite applications like those in document M §14 and gospel MT 12:33-37

In view of all the evidence, internal and external, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that in the portions C, H of Matt. 12:33-37 there is a specific application of certain genuine sayings of Jesus, which application is not the work of Jesus himself, but is a natural and not wholly unjustifiable effort by some interpreter to employ these sayings against the Pharisees. That interpreter seems to belong to the Matthaean circle, as is shown by his eschatological thought in the portion H. To the Matthaean document M, or to the evangelist Matthew himself, or to some subsequent worker upon the Gospel of Matthew there must be attributed, therefore, the sayings about the Son of Man as Judge of Men (§1), those about False Prophets in the Day of Judgment (§2), and those concerning Words as the Basis of Judgment (83).

$4. JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE TWELVE