Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
The parable of the Tares is introduced by Matthew into the third of the major discourses he attributes to Jesus, a discourse for which he relies heavily on both Mark 4 and Q (Matt. 13.16f = Luke 10.23f; Matt. 13.31f 33 = Luke 13.18f, 20f). While lacking any full parallel in either of these sources, the parable does recall in varying ways several other synoptic traditions, (i) The Markan parable of the Seed growing Secretly/Patient Husbandman (Mark 4.26–29) occupied in the Markan sequence the position now occupied in the Matthaean scheme by the parable of the Tares. Moreover, the occurrence of verbal reminiscences of the former in the latter has not infrequently impressed interpreters: anthrōpos, katheudein, sītos, blastanein, chortos, karpos, therismos, prōton. While some of these might be attributable to correspondences natural in the coverage of similar subject-matter, not all of them are necessary to such coverage (e.g. katheudein), not all of them are common words (e.g. blastanein), and the aggregate of all of them cannot easily be written off as coincidence, (ii) The parable of the Sower, with its appended interpretation (Mark 4.3–8, 14–20 = Matt. 13.3–8, 18–23), provides a precedent within this discourse for an explanation based on a series of 1:1 allegorical correspondences (see particularly, in the case of the Tares, vv. 37–39, which provide the basis for a summarising explanation in vv. 40–43: hōsper…).
page 557 note 1 The variations in nomenclature, discussed by Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (London: S.C.M. Press, 1963), pp. 151fGoogle Scholar, have been convincingly correlated with different stages in the history of the tradition by Kuhn, H.-W., Altere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1971). pp. 104–112.Google Scholar
page 557 note 2 On the principle of reminiscence, cf. Schürmann, H., Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den symptischen Evangelien (Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1968), pp. 111–125.Google Scholar
page 557 note 3 Elsewhere in the NT this occurs only at Heb. 9.4 and James 5.18.
page 558 note 1 Kuhn, op. cit., pp. 132–135.
page 558 note 2 Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in den Apostelgeschichte (Berlin: Töpelmann, 2nd ed. 1960), p. 145.Google Scholar
page 559 note 1 The Parables of Jesus (London: S.C.M. Press, 1963), p. 85.Google Scholar
page 559 note 2 The Sayings of Jesus (London: S.C.M. Press, repr. 1971), p. 197.Google Scholar
page 559 note 3 The Good News according to Matthew (London: S.P.C.K., 1976), p. 313.Google Scholar
page 559 note 4 Cf. Smith, C. W. F., ‘The Mixed State of the Church in Matthew's Gospel’, JBL 82 (1963), pp. 149–168, esp. p. 154Google Scholar, who sees here ‘an authentic parable of Jesus which fits into his apologia for associating with all men (“first the fish have to be caught”)’.
page 559 note 5 The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Religious Book Club, 1942), p. 188.Google Scholar
page 560 note 1 So. Jeremias, op. cit., p. 226; Grässer, op. cit., p. 145.
page 560 note 2 Promise and Fulfilment (London: S.C.M. Press, 1961), p. 138.Google Scholar
page 560 note 3 See Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 81–85.
page 561 note 1 Contra de Goedt, M., ‘L'Explication de la Parabole de l'Ivraie’, Revue Biblique 66 (1959), pp. 32–54Google Scholar; Crossan, J. D., ‘The Seed Parables of Jesus’, JBL 92 (1973), pp. 244–266, esp. p. 260.Google Scholar
page 561 note 2 Jeremias, op. cit., p. 81. Similarly, Smith, B. T. D., The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1937), p. 198Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), p. 187Google Scholar; E. Grässer, op. cit., p. 145; W. G. Kummel, op. cit., pp. 133, 135; Schweizer, E., Matthew, p. 304.Google Scholar
page 561 note 3 Jeremias, op. cit., p. 223.
page 561 note 4 op. cit., pp. 135f.
page 561 note 5 Mark 4.15; Acts 5.3; 1 Thess. 2.18, etc.
page 562 note 1 See my forthcoming article, ‘On doing violence to the Kingdom’ in Journal of Theology for Southern Africa.
page 562 note 2 R. Bultmann, op. cit., p. 25; Schweizer, E., The Good News according to Mark (London: S.P.C.K., 1971), p. 194.Google Scholar
page 563 note 1 Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: S.P.C.K., 1974), p. 369.Google Scholar
page 563 note 2 ‘Seed Parables’, p. 260. Similarly M. de Goedt, art. cit. p. 50.
page 563 note 3 The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13 (London: S.P.C.K., 1969), p. 65.Google Scholar
page 563 note 4 op. cit., p. 303.
page 563 note 5 cf. Kuhn, op. cit., pp. 99–112.
page 557 note 1 op. cit., pp. 133f
page 557 note 2 op. cit., p. 224.
page 557 note 3 ‘Parables of Growth’, in Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), p. 158.Google Scholar
page 557 note 4 op. cit., p. 193. Italics mine.
page 557 note 5 op. cit., p. 177.
page 565 note 1 op. cit., p. 225.
page 565 note 2 Compare the position of oikodespotēs at the beginning of a tradition in Matt. 13.52, 20.1, 21.33 (redaction of Mark 12.1).
page 565 note 3 The servants therefore match the Matthaean disciples in whom his community sees itself reflected as it listens receptively to its kyrios. On this Matthaean presentation of the disciples cf. Bornkamm—, G., Barth, G.—Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London: S.C.M., 1963), pp. 105–111.Google Scholar
page 566 note 1 See above, p. 558.
page 566 note 2 M. de Goedt, art. cit., 35f argues for dependence on an earlier tradition of the interpretation, and correctly suggests that ‘the sons of the kingdom’ was a phrase figuring in the Vorlage of Matt. 8.12 = Luke 13.28. However, by failing to notice the literary proximity of the two traditions in question he is prevented from seeing the source as the Q saying rather than a pre-Matthaean version of 13.36–43.
page 567 note 1 The others are Luke 12.39 (Q), 14.21 (contrast Matt. 22.7) and 22.11 (Mark 14.14).
page 568 note 1 Strack-Billerbeck I, p. 667.
page 568 note 2 It is no coincidence that Hauck, F., ‘karpos’, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3 (1965), p. 615Google Scholar, uses terms like ‘consequence’, ‘result’, ‘profit’, and ‘product’ in order to convey the meaning.
page 569 note 1 The parable of the Sower is another case of a regular and normal process (in view of the parallel between Mark 4.8 and Gen. 26.12) described by means of aorist tenses.
page 570 note 1 See, for instance, Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Matthaei (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1904), p. 69Google Scholar; Klostermann, E., Das Matthäusevangelium (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2nd ed., 1927), p. 121Google Scholar; T. W. Manson, op. cit., p. 193.
page 570 note 2 See, for instance, Jeremias, op. cit., p. 81; N. A. Dahl, op. cit., p. 159.
