activities here named fall within the expressions of true discipleship, they entirely miss that which constitutes the essence of discipleship. They are the body without the soul; at the most they represent the lesser half of the way of life. It will be recalled that when Jesus spoke the parable of the Good Samaritan he was not expounding his whole definition of the way "to inherit eternal life," but only its other half-" and thy neighbour as thyself." But in the paragraph under consideration the love of neighbor is not the other half but the whole of the basis of destiny.

If this mode of view is not elsewhere traceable to Jesus, and is here in a paragraph otherwise doubtful, from whence does it come? In answer, may it not correctly be said that we possess in this paragraph a summary sketch of the community ethics in the early Christian society as those ethics are known to us from the other literature of the period? Do not these activities constitute the principal forms in which the new moral life of the early church found its first corporate expressions? Reference is made not to the first years of the apostolic age, but to later decades, which preceded, however, the cessation of growth in the gospel tradition.

Back of the question as to the time of origin there lies the inquiry after the motive of origin. Suppose it be true that the paragraph is the product of the later decades of the early age of the church, why then was it fashioned? Is not the answer to be found by observing closely the limits of the circle within which these commendable activities are supposed to be practiced, namely, "unto one of these my brethren, these least ones ... unto one of these least ones"? Directly stated, the whole paragraph seems to be a form of appeal for the favorable reception and the benevolent treatment of the itinerant propagandists of the faith in the early age of the church. Regarded as such, it makes luminous the gravest interpretative difficulties in that chapter of document MK which holds more critical problems than any other portion of that document, namely, MK 9:33-50. One of the most serious of those problems is created by the repeated phrase, "one of these little ones . . . . one of such little ones." Confusion is caused by applying this phrase to a little child, whereas elsewhere in the context an actual child cannot be meant. 1 On the problems of MK 9:33-50, see pp. 67-78.

Moreover, when applied to the real child, the one saying unmistakably so applied is without intelligibility. It was found that if in all cases where the phrase appears it was taken as the equivalent of "one of my disciples" every saying containing the phrase would be wholly intelligible. That it should be so taken is confirmed not only by the internal and external evidences of the Markan occurrences, but also by the present paragraph, where "one of these least' ones" evidently means "one of my disciples," or, as expressly and more personally stated, "one of my brethren."

This brings together on a common plane two very closely related, but now widely separated, reputed sayings of Jesus, namely, those about the benevolent treatment of the itinerant propagandists in the present Matthaean paragraph and that one of like intent in the problem chapter of document MK, "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward," Matt. 10:42 MK 9:41. Beneath the document MK saying there is evidently the same fundamental ethical conception as underlies this Matthaean paragraph. They are at one both in ultimate ground and in purpose. They exalt the benevolent disposition in order to assure a favorable treatment of the propagandists of the faith. Are both or either of them from Jesus?

=

For the Matthaean paragraph, we are without any ordinary external test; but not so in the case of the document MK saying. In the study of the most confused section of document MK, it was concluded that the more primitive MK used by the evangelist Luke consisted only of the portions A-I with O, and that the portions J, K, M, N were added to the document subsequently, but before it came to the hands of the evangelist Matthew. The true historical setting and the more original form of the sayings in portion M were believed to be found in document M 85. Similarly, the portion K is apparently a fragment of sayings that are more adequately transmitted by document P$54. The portion N impresses one as an editorial endeavor to

The difference between this and the Markan phrase is only the difference between the positive (μxpŵv, little) and the superlative (λaxlorwv, least) of the one word.

2 As exhibited on p. 69-71.

fashion a form of transit between M and O, necessitated by the introduction of M. The portion J has undergone verbal changes, it seems, since document MK was used by Matthew, its more original wording being found in Matt. 10:42. But what shall be said as to the origin of the portion J? Unlike portions K and M, variant reports of it cannot be found in other documents; nor may it be explained, like portion N, as a transition. Indeed, one of its most marked characteristics is that it has no reasonably assignable relation to what precedes or to what follows; the common element in it and its context is no more than the phrase "one of these little ones.'

In view of these externally derived facts, it seems necessary to consider whether it may not be true that this saying in portion J of document MK has some source other than Jesus, let us say the early church, which by this saying and by its equivalent in the present Matthaean paragraph on the Judgment sought to assure for the itinerant propagandists of the faith a favorable reception and charitable treatment. That neither one is derived from the other seems evident from the total absence of verbal likeness; that both spring from the same view-point seems beyond any doubt. And the indications multiply that this view-point was that of the early church,1 rather than that of Jesus himself.

It was said at the outset that the present Matthaean portrayal of Judgment and Basis of Destiny might be, (1) the genuine utterance of Jesus and the source of similar ideas elsewhere which are unsupported by comparative study. But those unsupported ideas are found in greater or lesser measure in documents MK and P, and in gospel LK as well as gospel MT. On the other hand, documents MK and P and gospel LK report no portions which can be set in verbal parallelism with this Matthaean paragraph. Stated otherwise, if the content of this Matthaean paragraph is their source for these ideas, they have failed to embody the source but have retained the products of the source. This is not inconceivable, but it seems highly improb

able. Add to this consideration the fact that all the time indications within and without the paragraph point to a late date, and the supposition of it as a source for these portions of documents MK and P

I The Third Epistle of John is devoted to the securing of a favorable attitude toward and benevolent treatment of, the propagandists of the faith.

requires chronological reversions which give denial to the assumption. Much the more normal order is to regard the sayings in document MK 13:26, 27 as the starting-point from which there was adduced the whole of this Matthaean paragraph as a homiletic appeal. A homily based upon some impressive text and framed with some specific purpose seems as natural a product of the early years as is an exposition of a parable. In some way the homily ultimately found a place in gospel MT as a part of that discourse on which it seems to be based.

It was suggested, (2) that the Matthaean paragraph is from Jesus, but is not the source of similar ideas elsewhere, those other expressions being also directly from Jesus, the evidence having been wrongly interpreted in previous studies. But the recapitulation of all the evidence found in those previous studies has brought to light the fact that, almost without exception, it is externally based in a documentary way, and hence cannot be called in question, unless one disputes the testimony of the comparative method, that is, denies documentary bases for the First and Third Gospels.

As the other possibility for the origin of the paragraph there was advanced the hypothesis that, (3) it may not be from Jesus, but the product of the same tendency which added similar ideas elsewhere. This seems to be the conclusion demanded by the evidence. But that evidence indicates also that this Matthaean paragraph belongs to another period of the history of the tradition than that which originated similar ideas elsewhere in the gospels. The latter were formative; this is derivative. Early framers of tradition, probably without conscious purpose, supplanted, it seems, the original sayings of Jesus, as reported by document P §60, by the phraseology of document MK 13:24-27; later interpreters and enforcers of tradition apparently deduced from the latter and like passages the framework for such an ethical appeal on behalf of the brethren as is handed down in the present Matthaean paragraph.

If these conclusions are correct, then it is to be affirmed, finally, that it is not to Jesus himself but to the Matthaean factors in gospel tradition that there is to be assigned every reference to the Day of Judgment examined in the present chapter, except, it may be, the gospel LK promise of Judicial Functions to the Twelve (§4), a promise recorded in both gospel LK and gospel MT.

$8. THE FATE OF CERTAIN CITIES IN THE JUDGMENT

Evidently the portions E, F are Matthaean editorial expansions upon his document, being the equivalents respectively of portions B, C. The latter having been applied by his document to Chorazin and Bethsaida, it seemed apparently nothing more than a legitimate and necessary rounding-out and balancing of the sayings to adapt them to Capernaum also. But a close observer will note that the portion D is not the equivalent of portion A; the latter requires something additional, such as is supplied by portions B, C, whereas the portion Dis complete in itself. For the present purpose, it is not of much significance what may be one's decision about the source of portions E, F. The whole paragraph has a place here solely because there appears in portions C, F of the Matthaean P the phrase "the day of judgement." But a comparison with the Lukan P shows that this is the Matthaean expansion of the phrase "the judgement." No doubt Jesus could speak in general terms about "the judgement" without thereby recording himself as possessed by current eschatological conceptions and expectations of "the day of judgement." It will not be denied that he had convictions about differences of destiny for men, and that he spoke of a time when separation would be effected on the basis of judgment as to the ultimate worth of individuals, as in document P 860. Not even so much as that is conveyed by the simple phrase he used here—the judgement." The interpreter of Jesus must be on his guard against giving to a general term used by Jesus that specific content with which certain circles of thought subsequent to his day used its expansion-"the day of judgement." That the pro