In this chapter Matthew has eight parables.[111] The parables of the Sower and of the Mustard Seed he has taken from Mark. That of the Yeast he and Luke have taken from Q. That of the Weed in the Field has just been a.s.signed to some special source. The four in vss. 44-52 we a.s.sign to Matthew's recension of Q. The grounds upon which this a.s.signment is made are the following: the parables are extremely similar in form and content to those that admittedly come from Q, as the parable of the Yeast in this same chapter. They are so brief as to come under the category of "sayings"

rather than of "parables" in the ordinary sense. They are, with one exception, without allegorical or other interpretation. These facts establish their general Q character. The parable of the Fish-Net, in vss.

47-50, contains an allegorical interpretation. Vs. 50 also contains the phrase ??e? ?sta? ? ??a???? ?a? ? ????? t?? ?d??t??, which Matthew employs in five other connections. This phrase occurred at least once in Q (Mt viii, 12; Lk xiii, 28).

But in spite of a tendency toward repet.i.tion which may be observed in Matthew, it seems hardly fair to charge him with having inserted the phrase in the other five places where it occurs. It seems strange also that Matthew should record the parables of the Treasure, the Pearl, and the Converted Scribe without interpretation, but should himself be responsible for the interpretation of the parable of the Fish-Net. It is much more likely that he found the interpretation, with the parable, in his source.

In these four parables obviously there are two items which most scholars would agree in calling secondary: the allegorical interpretation of the parable of the Fish-Net, and the entire parable of the Converted Scribe.

Yet the parables of the Pearl and the Treasure are as primary as any utterances recorded of Jesus. The strong general similarity in form and content between these parables and those taken by Matthew and Luke from Q argues the probability of their presence in some form of that doc.u.ment.

Their absence from the Gospel of Luke indicates their absence from the recension in his hands. And the presence in them of these secondary traits argues their addition to Q at some time after its original compilation.

All these considerations make the a.s.signment of these four little parables to QMt in a high degree probable.

PETER WALKING ON THE WATER

(Mt xiv, 28-31)

The presence of so much narrative material in this section argues at once against its derivation from any form of Q. It belongs to a cycle of Peter-sayings preserved in Matthew alone. The source appears to have been a special one, very probably oral.

"TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL"

(Mt xv, 22-24)

These verses are an insertion of Matthew's into the story of the Syrophoenician woman, which he has copied from Mark. It is worthy of note that thruout the entire story the verbal agreement is much more slight than is usual in narratives, especially such as contain sayings of Jesus, taken by Matthew from Mark. Luke has no parallel. Considering the very slight proportion of narrative, and the great preponderance of sayings-material, in the section, it would not be strange if it stood in Q. If it stood in Luke's recension, the att.i.tude of Jesus toward non-Jewish peoples, as implied in the story, would be sufficient to account for Luke's omission of it. The sentiment of vs. 24, in particular, is extremely "primary." It could hardly have been invented and ascribed to Jesus after his time. Mark's words, "Let the children first be fed," tone down the excessively Jewish particularism of Matthew's account; even aside from these words, which are absent from Matthew, Matthew's entire version of the incident is more primary than Mark's. This may be, and has been, explained by saying that Mark's story has been worked over by an editor, subsequent to Matthew's use of his Gospel. But since Mark and Q have been shown to coincide in a certain amount of material, a simpler explanation is that they coincided in this story of the Syrophoenician woman; the more primitive character of Matthew's account is then explained by its dependence upon Q, which is older than Mark. It cannot be shown to have been absent from Luke's recension, and its presence there may be probable, but cannot be demonstrated. It is therefore a.s.signed--but with some hesitation--to QMt.

A SUMMARY OF JESUS' HEALING WORK

(Mt xv, 29-31)

This little summary, like that in Mt iv, 23-25, would naturally be ascribed to Matthew. It might be regarded as a re-working of Mk vii, 31, and a subst.i.tute in general terms for the story which immediately follows that verse in Mark.[112] The use by Matthew of such a phrase as t?? ?e??

?s?a?? would be explained by the fact that the cures are represented as being worked outside of Jewish territory. With this explanation the verses may be ascribed to Matthew.

THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

(Mt xvi, 17-19)

This is another Peter-section inserted in a story taken from Mark. Luke has the story but not this insertion. The section apparently belongs to the same cycle of Peter-stories with the incident of the walking on the water, already considered. It should be ascribed to some special and undetermined source. The general character of this particular section would indicate its very late origin.

AN INSERTION IN THE STORY OF THE TRANSFIGURATION

(Mt xvii, 6-7)

No special source, other at least than oral tradition, is necessary to account for so slight an addition. Yet considering Matthew's general tendency to condense, rather than to expand, Mark's narratives, and the faithfulness with which he has transcribed the rest of this narrative, it may be easier to regard this insertion as a gloss.

"WHOSOEVER HUMBLES HIMSELF AS THIS LITTLE CHILD"

(Mt xviii, 4)

The verse immediately preceding this is found in Mark, but in another context, from where Matthew has evidently transposed it to this place.

This vs. 4 is found in Matthew alone. A variant of it is found in Mt xxiii, 12. This latter is closely similar to, but not identical with, the saying twice given by Luke (Lk xiv, 11; xviii, 14). Considering his dislike for doublets, the fact that the saying occurs twice in Luke may naturally be taken to indicate its presence in both Mark and Q. But the verse under consideration here can be at most but a reminiscence of the saying which occurs twice in Luke and in Mt xxiii, 12. Considering the fact that Matthew is here obviously exercising his talent at combination, the verse should probably be ascribed to his editorial hand.

THE UNFORGIVING SERVANT

(Mt xviii, 23-35)

In spite of its reference to the kingdom of Heaven this parable is much too long for Q, and should be a.s.signed to a special source.

ABOUT EUNUCHS

(Mt xix, 10-12)

This saying is appended to a discussion taken from Mark. Considering its loose connection in the context, it is perhaps safer to a.s.sume that it has been added from some oral authority.

THE LABORERS IN THE VINEYARD

(Mt xx, 1-16)

The parable is too long for Q, tho like the Q parables it has to do with the kingdom of G.o.d. The last verse is an apparently proverbial saying, for which Matthew has a doublet in xix, 30, and Luke a variant in Lk xiii, 30.

THE TWO SONS

(Mt xxi, 28-32)

Like the other matter in this vicinity peculiar to Matthew, and like the parables of this length thruout, this parable should be a.s.signed to a special source.

THE WEDDING FEAST

(Mt xxii, 1-14)

J. Weiss a.s.signs this parable, with Lk xiv, 16-24, to Q. But upon the principle we have been following the parable is too long for Q. While it is evidently the same parable as that told in Lk xiv, 16-24, there is clearly no literary connection between Matthew and Luke here. Both Wellhausen and Wernle a.s.sign it to Q; Harnack and Hawkins to a special source. This instance brings up the question of what degree of literary similarity must be present in order to warrant the a.s.sumption of literary connection. No words are identical here except such as had to be to enable two men to tell the same story.

AGAINST THE PHARISEES

(Mt xxiii, 2-3, 5, 8-10, 15-22)

Matthew here conflates his Q material with his Marcan material. The matter is partially duplicated in Luke's chap. xi. The similarities and the differences between the Matthean and Lucan versions are precisely such features as have led to the hypothesis of the two recensions. The verses should be a.s.signed to QMt.

THE PARABLES OF THE TEN VIRGINS, THE TALENTS, THE JUDGMENT