^{page 283 note 1} The meaning of the original saying is brought Out clearly in John xiii. 20, with Johannine variations in vocabulary: & In receiving one sent by Christ in virtue of Christ's own sending by the Father, one receives the Father. This is apposite for an apostle, not for a.

^{page 284 note 1} Cf. I Thessalonians iv. . For Luke's knowledge and use of I Thessalonians vid. Orchard, J. B., Thessalonians and the Synoptic Gospels, Biblica xix, 1938, pp. 28f. It is thus probable that the differences of wording between Matt. x. 40 and Luke x. 16 are due to alterations made by Luke.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 2} Professor, Kilpatrick (The Origins of the Gospel According to St Matthew, 1946, pp. 26f.) writes: Matt. x. 40 ‘does not differ enough from Mark ix. 37 to justify the view that the evangelist is using another source besides Mark.’ He accepts the common view that Mark is Matthew's main source for the ‘triple tradition’ material, but his decision against explaining the two verses by appeal to different sources is worth noting.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 3} M. Vaganay thinks that Matt. x. 42 has preserved the main tenor of the Mg saying that is behind Mark ix. 41. He is, however, unable to give a single origin to Matt. x. 40 and Mark ix. 37 b, because it would involve the derivation of Luke x. 16 from Matt. x. 40; and he is determined to exclude any use of Matthew by Luke.

^{page 286 note 1} Such self-quotation is the cause of several of the doublets in Matthew. Thus in xxv. 29 we read: . This sayitig interrupts the concluding speech of the central ‘character’ in the parable of the Talents. Its sententiousness is out of harmony with its position, and we are left wondering whether it is supposed to be part of the speech in which it occurs, or is to be taken as a comment en passant by Jesus. In fact, it is probably an insertion by Matthew, a kind of ‘reference back’ to Matt. xiii. 12: . This, verse from the chapter of parables coheres perfectly with its context (contrast the Marcan parallel, Mark iv. 25, which has no internal coherence with either the preceding or succeeding verse), and is anchored there by the verb . Cf. The Originality of St Matthew, ch. ix.

^{page 287 note 1} Luke xvii. if. aho combines the two sayings of Matt. xviii. 6f., but in reverse order and in a non-Marcan context. If it is conceded that Luke used Matthew, this agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark has no significance. Otherwise, it is an awkward difficulty for Marcan priorists, who must either suppose an overlapping of Mark and Qin respect of the saying at Matt. xviii. 6, or admit that Mark knew and used Q.

^{page 288 note 1} The words κυλλός and κωλός occur elsewhere in Matthew. They necessarily carry with them μονόϕθαλμος.

^{page 288 note 2} I should be quite willing to admit that Matthew is responsible for inserting the comparison of the wandering sheep (xviii. 12f.) into its present context, but for the odd fact that it so neatly creates an association between this section of the community-discourse and the scene of the Last Judgment, where the ‘sheep’ of the Son of Man are mentioned, and repeated reference is made to ‘one’ of them as ‘one of these very little ones’. It is just possible that an editor could achieve this very happy result in two consecutive paragraphs. I find it extremely difficult to think that Matthew has done it in respect of two discourses so widely separated as Matt. xviii and Matt. xxiv, xxv. It seems to xne that the association little ones = sheep may come on both occasions from the same mind, the mind of him who, according to Luke (xii. 32), told his ‘little flock’ that it was their Father's good pleasure to give them the kingdom, and who (Matt. xviii. 3) made childlikeness a condition of entry to the kingdom of heaven. On the other hand, it has been suggested that in xxv. 31–46 Matthew has again completed two pieces of discourse (see Dupont, J., Les Béatitudes (Louvain, 1954), p. 139, n. 5).Google Scholar