In the extended exhibit given above there are shown the five recensions possessed by us of what seems to be a single parable. Naturally in the case where the two later evangelists use one document for their report, that is, P§§29, 30, the accounts are most closely parallel. Indeed, Matthew transcribes his document P with verbal faithfulness until he reaches the portion S, where his strong eschatological tendency asserts itself to the very considerable modification of that portion. It is probably this almost entire change of form in S that leads to his complete omission of the important thought in portion R. The report in document M §25 = document P §64B has already been examined; it suffices at this time to indicate again that the non-paralleled portions J, M, and S of document M 825 are three expressions of that eschatological tendency which has been found to characterize document M. In document P §64B the non-paralleled portion B and the bracketed phrase in portion G show, it seems, the influence of the setting given the parable by document P §64AC. The complement of portion F is portion T, but in addition to being without parallels in the other accounts these portions introduce an idea which seems extraneous to the form and movement of the parable as a whole. They seem to reflect the reception given Jesus by his people, but do not read like his own interpretation of that reception, but rather that of a later time. When there are removed from document M §25= document P §64B those portions which are explainable as due to documentary tendency, or as the resultants of documentary setting or later reflection, the two accounts will be seen to be very similar, document M supplying in portion E a summary of activities in advance of the personal reports of the several servants.

1 See pp. 27-29.

The most singular portion of the several recensions is the portion U which appears in document MK only. The thought of that portion is not found in any part of the other accounts of this parable. The unfaithful steward or servant is condemned to punishment not on account of unfaithfulness in watching but because of neglect in stewardship. It is not assumed that watchfulness constitutes an element of the assigned task, but rather, as in portion D of document MK itself, "to each one his work." If the testimony of the four other recensions is to be given the weight which seems to be its due, the portion U of document MK cannot be regarded as an original part of this parable. Indeed, it seems to be excluded by the subsequent testimony of document MK itself, for in the verses which immediately follow, MK 13:35-37, it is considered that all and not one only are required to "Watch."

In the document P $829, 30 recension the only portion that is without some degree of parallel in the other accounts is the portion O, which, it has been observed, turns away from "the faithful and wise servant" with whom the parable opens to "that evil servant," the ground of his defection being the delay in the return of his lord. The other accounts recognize unfaithfulness in certain of the servants, but here only is this hypothetical unfaithfulness made the genesis of an appeal for faithfulness grounded in an unexpected and unannounced return of "the lord." In view of the oft-deferred hopes of the apostolic age as to the return of Jesus, and the consequent tendency toward laxity in the Christian community, it seems reasonable to regard the portion O as the resultant of the endeavor to adapt a parable of Jesus so that its threatening content might stay defection and unfaithfulness. This is effected by representing the evil servant as saying "in his heart" precisely that which the members of the Christian community were saying, namely, "The lord delayeth his coming.'

The total result of the comparative study of these several recensions seems to be the conclusion that in any reconstruction of the final discourse the form of this parable to be given a place ought to be that which is preserved in document M §25, with the omission of the portions J, M, and S only. The different reports of the other parable of the pair belonging to the final discourse may now be exhibited in parallelism.

The fundamental distinction between the "wise" virgins and those who were "foolish" is that the "wise" provided themselves with a supply of oil sufficient for use in a long wait for the bridegroom, while the "foolish," expecting to greet him presently, could not meet the contingency of deferred arrival. The "wise" are not commended because they "watch" while the "foolish" sleep, for portion F makes it clear that "they all slumbered and slept." Similarly, they all "arose and trimmed their lamps;" differentiation begins only when that which has been exhausted by the lapse of much time completely fails. The folly of the "foolish" does not consist in the fact that they

are caught by a sudden and unexpected return of their lord while they sleep, but in the fact that they are confident that his return will be presently. The emphasis of the parable is apparently neither "Watch therefore" nor "Let your loins be girded about and your lamps burning," but rather "Slumber and sleep as may be needed in the long vigil, but above all be provided for the prolongation of that vigil through such a period of time as shall exhaust the supplies of all but those who from the first expect that the bridegroom will not come presently."

The influence of the document MK account of this parable upon the evangelist Matthew, even after Matthew's choice of the fuller document M report of it, may be seen in the application of the parable made by him in Matt. 25:13, "Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour," the equivalent of the above portions A and B of document MK. But this exhortation, as has been seen, misses the apparent teaching of the parable, for the "foolish" were prepared for a "coming suddenly," and neither "wise" nor "foolish" commended themselves by being on watch. The Markan exhortation is against being caught off guard, and is based in the probable suddenness of the return; neither of these thoughts has any place in the document M report of the parable.

It would seem, therefore, that these two parables of the final discourse, as originally spoken by Jesus, convey messages considerably different from the general impression made by the fragmentary and somewhat modified reports preserved to us by document MK 13:3337 and document P§§27-30. These reports seem to have suffered by the endeavor of their transmitters to bring these two parables into a hortatory service for the early Christian community. In addition to the effects of this practical use of them, there are discoverable decided indications that their form was detrimentally affected by the memory of two aspects of the day of the Son of man as that day was described by Jesus, namely, the suddenness of the day-"as the lightning," and the total ignorance as to its time-"of that day knoweth no one." The latter thought is preserved in document MK 13:32; but it is significant that the idea of suddenness is not present in the document MK report of the day, MK 13:24-27. It is, however, not only present but the dominant characteristic in that descrip