M M M M M 33-46. From Mk 121-12. See Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 114. 33-46. The labourers in the vineyard. 33. Hear another parable: There was a man, a householder, who planted a vineyard, and placed round it a fence, and digged in it a press, and built a tower.] Mk. has: "A man planted a vineyard, and placed round (it) a fence, and digged a press, and built a tower." The details are borrowed from Is 52. For the ἄνθρωπος —οἰκοδεσπότης ὅστις, cf. 1352 ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσπότῃ ὅστις, 201 δ., 1823 ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ ὅς. Mk. has simply ἄνθρωπος.—φραγμὸν αὐτῷ περιέθηκεν] TEPLÉONKEY] Mk. has repté@nker payuóv. For Mt.'s order, cf. Is 52.—ληνόν] Mk. has ὑπολήνιον ; Is. προλήνιον. 33. And let it out to husbandmen, and went away.] So Mk. 34. And when the season of the fruits arrived, he sent his servant to the husbandmen to receive its fruits.] Mk. has: "And sent to the husbandmen at the season a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen the fruits of the vineyard." 35. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.] Mk. has: "And they took him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent to them another servant; and him they-(?), and shamefully treated. And another he sent, and him they killed." 36. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did to them likewise.] Mk. has: "And many others; beating some, and killing some." In Mk. there is before the final sending of the son a triple sending of a single messenger, vv.2. 4. 5, followed by a general statement, v.5 "and many others." Mt. simplifies this into a double sending of several messengers, vv. 34. 36, but seems to show a trace of Mk.'s first three messengers in his ov μév, ôv dé, ov Sé, v.35. He avoids Mk.'s rare and uncertain (probably corrupt) word ἐκεφαλίωσαν. Further, in Mk. the treatment of the first three messengers is climactic: the first they beat and sent away, the second they put to shame, the third they killed. After this "the many others" comes in very weakly. Mt., with his double sending of several messengers, avoids this anticlimax. Lk. has a triple sending of a single messenger. The first was beaten and sent back empty-handed, the second beaten and dishonoured and sent away, the third wounded and cast out. Thus the crime of murder is not reached till the son is sent. M 37. And at last he sent to them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.] Mk. has: "Still one he had, a son beloved. He sent him last to them, saying that they will reverence my son." See Gould on Mk 126_11. M 38. But the husbandmen, having seen the son, said amongst themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us have his inheritance.] Mk. has: "But those husbandmen said to one another that this is the heir; come, let us kill him, and ours shall be the inheritance.—ἐν ἑαυτοῖς] Mk. has πρὸς ἑαυτούς. Mt. avoids Tρós in this sense; cf. v.25, and 167 Mk 816 39. And they took him, and cast him outside the vineyard, and M killed him.] Mk. has: "And they took him, and killed him, and cast him outside the vineyard." Mt., with the history of the Passion in his mind, reverses Mk.'s second and third clauses. Christ was crucified outside the city. See on Lk 2015. 40, 41. When, therefore, the lord of the vineyard shall come, what M will he do to those husbandmen? They say to him, He will evilly destroy the evil ones, and will give the vineyard to other husbandmen, who will render to him the fruits at their seasons.] Mk. has: "What will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others." In Mk. Christ Himself answers the rhetorical question. Mt. places the answer in the mouth of the rulers, that they themselves, as in v.31, may pronounce their own condemnation. This change involves others. Mk's abrupt τί ποιήσει ὁ κύριος τοῦ άureλovos must now, as an independent sentence, be rounded off by the anticipation of ὅταν οὖν ἔλθῃ, and by the addition of ἐκείνοις, which had been omitted from Mk 7. In v.41 kaкoùs κakŵs takes the place of ἐλεύσεται, which has been transferred to v.40 ; ἐκδώσεται, cf. ἐξέδετο, ν.33, takes the place of δώσει, and a clause is added to round off the sentence. For the phraseology, cf. Ps 13. 42. Jesus saith to them, Did you never read in the Scriptures, M The stone which the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner: from the Lord was this, and it is marvellous in our eyes ?] So Mk., without "Jesus saith to them," and with "Did you not read this Scripture," for Mt.'s "Did you never read in the Scriptures." The quotation is from the LXX of Ps 11722. aurη corresponds to the Heb. neutral pronoun ns. "This " means this fact, that the rejected stone became the head of the corner. 43. Therefore I say to you, That the kingdom of God shall be E taken from you, and shall be given to a nation which produceth its fruits.] The words do not occur in Mk. They are an expository comment of the editor. The parable carries forward the thought of the preceding section. The Jewish rulers had adopted towards the Baptist a policy of non-recognition, which involved them in doubts as to the authority of Christ as the Messiah, vv. 23-32. Their action was typical and prophetic. They had at all times disobeyed the messengers of God, and were on the point of putting to death the Messiah, the Son of God, and His final Messenger to them. Consequently the divine favour, the kingdom the vineyard, would be withdrawn from them and given to others. Vv.41-42 express the same thought under another metaphor. The stone which the builders of Israel, that is, the Jewish authorities, rejected would E? become the chief stone in another building. The edifice of Israel's national life was to give place to another building; cf. 1618 oikoδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.—ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ] Since the parable as a whole is clearly taken from Mk., there is every reason to suppose that this verse, which is not in Mk., is an editorial comment on the meaning of the parable. The vineyard was to be taken from the Jewish nation; but what term could the editor substitute for the vineyard? What he wished to express was, no doubt, the privileged position of the Jews as the recipients of a divine revelation. But this was just what the Rabbinical writers express by "the sovereignty of the heavens." When a heathen became a proselyte, and was incorporated into the privileged Jewish people, he was said to take upon himself the sovereignty of the heavens ; see Dalman, Words, p. 97. We might therefore have expected the editor to use the phrase βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. But since he has throughout the Gospel employed this term for the eschatological kingdom which Christ announced, and which was to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven, it would have been unsuitable here. For that kingdom had never been the possession of the Jewish rulers, and could not be taken from them. The phrase βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, in the sense current among the Jews of the 1st century A.D., of sovereignty of God, seemed more suitable here; and the editor, by using it, once more betrays his Jewish origin, and emphasises his sense of the difference between this phrase in his Gospel and the more frequent aoiλeía Tŵv oipavov. See on 1228 and 2181, and Introduction, p. lxvii.-Ove] the conception of the Christian society as an ovos occurs only here in the Gospel. It has twice been called an ikkλnoría, 1617 1817. The word is probably here suggested by the idea of the Jewish nation, implied in the iμôv. 44. And every one who falleth upon this stone shall be dashed in pieces: but upon whomsoever it shall fall, it shall scatter him as dust.] The words do not occur in Mk. The stone of v.42 seems to have suggested the stone of Is 814. 15 and the stone of Dn 234. 44-45. The verse apparently means that the rejection of the Messiah, “the son of v.37 and the stone" of v.42, would involve the complete break up of the Jewish polity.-Akunσa] is borrowed from Dn 244 (Th.), and is used in the same sense as in that passage, namely, to break into small pieces, or to scatter as dust; see Deissm. Bib. Stud. p. 225. See also Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, p. 208. The verse is omitted by D 33 abeff12 S1. It may perhaps be an interpolation from Lk 2018, where the saying occurs in the form πᾶς ὁ πεσὼν ἐπ ̓ ἐκεῖνον τὸν λίθον, κ.τ.λ. But the verse as it stands in Mt. looks very much like an early gloss, suggested by v.48. That verse seems to be an editorial interpretation of the meaning of the parable. The vineyard was to be given to others, v.11. That is to say, the privileges of the Jewish nation, entrusted to it by God, were to be taken from it and given to others. The editor describes these privileges as "the kingdom of God," by which he probably means the whole of the special revelation vouchsafed to the Jewish nation. He could hardly have used the term "the kingdom of the heavens," because he everywhere employs this term to signify the kingdom announced by Christ as coming in the near future. Here the parable necessitates the use of a term to describe some privilege, corresponding to the vineyard, already in the possession of the Jewish nation. It is not very probable that after 'thus interpreting the parable and closing the narrative the editor would have added v.44, which carries the thought back again to v.42. But a later copyist of the Gospel has been reminded by the word Ovel (v.48) of a passage in Dn 24 where it is said that the kingdom shall not be left to another people, ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ λαῷ ἑτέρῳ οὐκ ὑπολειφθήσεται, Th. ; αὕτη ἡ βασιλεία ἄλλο ἔθνος οὐ μὴ ἐάσῃ, LXX. Whilst considering this contrast, his eye was caught by the next clause in Dn., λεπτυνεῖ καὶ λικμήσει πάσας τὰς βασιλείας. This afforded him the nucleus of an explanatory gloss, v.44, which he has built up out of Dn 245 (Th.), Is 814. 15. How, then, are we to explain Lk 2018? It is natural to say that, if not genuine in Mt., the history of the saying begins with Lk 2018, whence it has been transferred to Mt. But, if I am not mistaken, the history of the clause begins rather with Mt 2143. It was the eve of that verse which directed attention to the "other nation" of Dn 244, and so to the Aikμnoei of that passage. It is improbable that the original editor of Mt. inserted v.44, but it may have been interpolated at a very early date, and may have been read as part of the first Gospel by the author of the third. Or it may have passed from the first Gospel into the third at so early a date that no hint of its spuriousness there is given by the extant witnesses to the text of that Gospel. There is, of course, no reason why the same glossator should not have inserted the words in both Gospels. 45. And the chief priest and the Pharisees heard His parables, M and perceived that He speaks about them.] 46. And seeking to arrest Him, they feared the multitudes, since M they held Him for a prophet.] Mk. has: "They were seeking to arrest Him, and feared the multitude: for they perceived that He spoke the parable with reference to them. And leaving Him, they went away." Mt., who has another parable to insert, omits the last clause. Mt.'s slight changes of Mk. are intentional. yvwσav yap in Mk. explains not the immediately preceding clause, but ýroVV aντÒν κρаτĥσαι. Mt. places the clauses in logical order: (a) the motive, "they perceived that He spoke about them"; (b) the consequent action, "seeking to arrest Him"; (c) the hindrance, "they feared the people." Then to maintain the external form of Mk.'s E L sentence, he adds another clause stating the ground of ¿poßýðŋσav. -oxλous as often, for Mk.'s singular. eis popýτηy, according to Wellhausen, is Aramaic. We should expect is, as in v.26. 33-46. Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. in the following particulars. Both have the order ἄνθρωπος ἐφύτευσεν ἀμπελῶνα, Με 33, Lk 20. Both insert oi yewypoí, Mt 85, Lk 10. Both insert idóvres, Mt 38, Lk 14. Both insert ovv, Mt 40, Lk 15. Both insert oi ȧpxɩepeîs, Mt 45, Lk 19. More important is the fact that Lk. also inserts words almost identical with Mt 44. If Mt 44 be genuine, this agreement might seem to suggest a second source. But since in other respects the texts of Mt. and Lk. read like the result of independent redaction of Mk., it is better to suppose that Lk. had read Mt., and that the agreements just mentioned are due to reminiscence by Lk. of Mt.'s version of the parable. The editor here adds a parable from the Logia. XXII. 1. And Jesus answered again, and spake in parables to them, saying, 2. The kingdom of the heavens is likened to a human king, who made a marriage for his son.] For poon, see on 1324. For ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεί, 1823 L 3. And sent his servants to call the invited (guests) to the marriage: and they were unwilling to come.] L 4. Again, he sent other servants, saying, Say to the invited (guests), Behold, my feast I have prepared: my oxen and fatlings are slaughtered, and all things are ready: come to the marriage.] For the double sending, cf. 2136. L 5, 6. And they, neglecting (the invitation), went away, one to his E estate, and one to his business: and the rest seized his servants, and ill-treated them, and killed them.]-idiov] here the possessive pronoun; see Deissm. Bib. Stud. 123. E L L L = 7. And the king was angry, and sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burnt up their city.] 6, 7. These verses may be due to the editor writing in remembrance of the death of the Baptist, the Crucifixion of the Messiah, the persecution of the Apostles, and the destruction of Jerusalem. V.8 follows well upon v.5. οὐκ ἦσαν ἄξιοι suits the indifferent guests of v.5 much better than the executed murderers of v.7. The verse expresses the editor's belief in the connection between the fall of Jerusalem and the Parousia. The marriage feast here follows the burning of the city. 8. Then he saith to his servants, The marriage feast is ready, but the invited (guests) were not worthy.] 9. Go therefore to the byways, and as many as ye shall find, invite to the marriage.]-diegodovs rov odŵr] Cf. Hdt. i. 199. 10. And those servants went out into the highways, and gathered all whom they found, both evil and good: and the marriage feast |