tion does eye or hand have to adultery, as defined by Jesus? Does document M show the true, original context of the sayings, and document MK illustrate how a strong, vivid saying from Jesus, of an easily detachable kind, could find lodgment in a context foreign to it? Does the MK record of the sayings show any accretions? In what direction is the apparent tendency of those words that look like aftergrowths? Does the study of MK 9:33-50 strengthen or weaken the assumption that these sayings are a part of the words of Jesus upon that occasion ?1

C. DOCUMENT M COMPARED WITH DOCUMENT P

I. THE PARABLE OF THE TALENTS OR POUNDS
DOCUMENT M 825

DOCUMENT P $64

A And as they heard these
things, he added and spake a
parable, because he was nigh to
Jerusalem, and because they
supposed that the kingdom of
God was immediately to appear.
He said therefore,

1 For a study of these and related questions suggested by the MK form and loca

tion of these sayings, see pp. 67–78 and 256–63.

Is there any reasonable doubt that these are two accounts of the same parable, the differences being due to the fact that they have come down to us by two different lines of tradition? Are the differences in detail any greater than those in the two records of the Sermon

on the Mount ? Or in the two accounts of the Call of the Four? Or in the two statements of John the Baptist's conception of the work of the Christ? Are the portions peculiar to each document, that is, the words set to right and left above, namely, the portions K, N, T and C,H+G, S, due to the different settings which the parable came to have in the two different documents? Does the parable reach its most natural conclusion with the last verse which the two documents have in common, portion R? And are the set-aside verses which follow in each document, portions S and T, nothing more than the expression of the complement to certain inserted (set-aside) thoughts which have a place earlier in the record? Is the statement about "receiving the kingdom" in P, portions C and H, the result of the introduction, portion A, by which the parable is preceded, and is that setting an early or a late editorial interpretation of the parable? At what point in his career and to whom is it most likely that Jesus spoke the parable, those given by document P or those given by Matthew? Do the setaside portions have any bearing upon what the parable as a whole seems intended to teach? Is the judicial sentence with which the document M account of the parable closes one within the authority of a man such as the parable supposes?1

2. THE PARABLE OF THE GREAT SUPPER OR MARRIAGE FEAST

DOCUMENT M §23

A And Jesus answered and spake again
in parables unto them, saying,

B

с

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, which made a marriage feast for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast: and they would not come. Again he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them that are bidden, Behold, I have made ready my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come to the marriage feast.

But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his merchandise: and the rest laid hold on his servants, and entreated them shamefully, and killed them.

1 On the problems raised by the two forms of this parable, see pp. 185-205.

E Then saith he to his servants, The wed-
ding is ready, but they that were bidden
were not worthy. Go ye therefore unto
the partings of the highways, and as many
as ye shall find, bid to the marriage feast.
And those servants went out into the
highways, and gathered together all as
many as they found, both bad and good:
and the wedding was filled with guests.

E And the servant came, and told his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor and maimed, and blind and lame. And the servant said, Lord, what thou didst command is done, and yet there is room. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and constrain them to come in, that my house may be filled. For I say unto you, that none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

F But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding-garment: and he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding-garment? And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few chosen.

Which is the more reasonable, to assume that we have here two different parables spoken on two separate occasions, or that these are two recensions of the one parable, differing in details because they have come down through two lines of tradition? Which setting is the more natural? Why did Matthew take this parable out of his group of document M parables of the kingdom of heaven, M §§15-25, and set it down after the parable of document MK 12:1-12? Had he any other guide than the internal suggestion of the parable? And if not, shall it be said that the actual setting assigned by document P, portion A, is more probably historical? As to the content of the parable, do the two unparalleled (set-aside) portions of document M call forth questions or create difficulties? May it be said with reason that the portion D reflects the experience of history, being a growth upon the parable resulting from the destruction of Jerusalem? Regarded as an original part of the parable, is it or is it not unwarrantedly drastic treatment? And is the concluding paragraph of the document M report, portion F, in keeping with the apparent purpose of the parable? Is a guest so pressed to take advantage of an invitation then to be driven out on the ground of attire? Has any king the power to commit to a fate like that with which the document M record closes? Since a similar fate closed the M record of the parable of the Pounds or Talents as against the P record, shall it be affirmed that this eschatological feature is a tendency of the M document?

3. THE PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS DOCUMENT M $24

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were foolish, and five were wise. For the foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them: but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. But at midnight there is a cry, Behold, the bridegroom! Come ye forth to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are going out. But the wise answered, saying, Peradventure there will not be enough for us and you: go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went away to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut. Afterward come also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour.

DOCUMENT P 827

Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning; and be ye yourselves like unto men looking for their lord, when he shall return from the marriage feast; that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may straightway open unto him. Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them sit down to meat, and shall come and serve them And if he shall come in the second watch, and if the third, and find them so, blessed are those servants.

Ought it to be held without hesitation that the differences between the documents in this case demand that these be considered as two different parables? Is the likeness between them reducible to so small an element that they must be thought of as two differentiated treatments of the same theme? Is that in the P document structurally so similar to the majority of Jesus' parables that there is no reason to regard it as having undergone modification? Did the evangelist Matthew regard these as two reports of the same parable? If not, why did he take up two of the three associated parables in P §§27-29, but drop the third in favor of the document M §24 report of it, Matt. 24:43-25:13? Shall we agree or disagree with the judgment of Matthew in this regard? Which of the two reports retains the purest parabolic form? Was a parable dealing with the future of the Christian community more likely or less likely to undergo modification in the course of transmission than those sayings and parables of Jesus which dealt with moral and religious principles apart from prospective history? Apart from P§27, are other traces of the original parable of the Ten Virgins to be found in the somewhat confused $39 of document P? Is P §39 made more intelligible or less intelligible by regarding it as the product of a telescoping of parts of M§§13, 24? Is this tendency to enlarge the use of certain ideas in the parable of the Ten Virgins discoverable elsewhere, say, for instance, in the portions of M §14 not paralleled in G §§15, 16, as exhibited in I: B:3 above ?1

I These and related questions are considered on pp. 185-205.