^{page 16 note 1} For other aspects cf. Wilkens, W., ‘Die Redaktion des Gleichniskapitels Mark. 4 durch Matth.’, Theologische Zeitschrift, XX (1964), 305–27,Google Scholar and Kingsbury, J. D., The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13 (1969).Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 1} Idiomatically όμοία έστίν… is a more natural Greek form than ώμοιώθη… See Jeremias, J., Die Gleichnisse Jesu (7th ed. 1965), pp. 99 f.Google Scholar Revised Eng. ed. 1963, pp. 101 f.

^{page 18 note 2} All seven parables are found in the Gospel of Thomas but separated and linked to other material. See 9, 57, 20, 96, 109 (cf. 76), 76, and 8. Cf. Schrage, W., Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen, Z.N.W., Beih. 29 (1964).Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 3} Cf. Lohr's, C. H. attempt to show that the total disposition of Matthew's gospel forms an inclusio-pattern, ‘Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXIII (1961), 403–35.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 1} ‘The Parable of the Sower and its interpretation’, N.T.S. XIV (1967/1968), 165–93.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 2} The Letters to the Seven churches in Revelation show how the summons to respond to the message that has just been delivered is expressed naturally by the aorist άκουοάτω (ii. 7, 11, 17, 29; iii. 6, 13, 22).

^{page 20 note 1} The metaphorical language of the parable is comparatively easy to interpret with the help of what is said elsewhere in the gospel; compare, e.g., xiii. 26 with vii. 16, 20, etc.

^{page 21 note 1} The tares are probably Lolium temulentum (Jeremias, op. cit. p. 222, Eng. ed. p. 224) which looks very like wheat. Note the care for the small and weak–the wheat which looks like tares! –shown in the parable.

^{page 21 note 2} Since fates such as distress and persecution were traditionally regarded as the result of ‘the burning anger’ of God, the burning heat of the sun in the parable could be seen as a suitable metaphor for the divine wrath behind the persecutions.

^{page 21 note 3} On this see Dautzenberg, G., Sein Leben bewahren (1966)Google Scholar and Braun, H., Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (2nd ed. 1967), pp. 136–58.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 4} So Jeremias, op. cit. pp. 145–9 (Eng. ed. pp. 146–9); cf. Dahl, N. A., ‘The Parables of Growth’, Studia Theologica, v (1952), 132–66,Google Scholar especially pp. 148 f.

^{page 22 note 1} On the ancient idea that the sown seed dies, see Braun, op. cit. pp. 140–5.

^{page 22 note 2} Note where the accent lies in the version in the Gospel of Thomas (log. 20): ‘ …It is like a mustard seed, smaller than all seeds. But when it falls on the tilled earth, it produces a large branch and becomes shelter for birds of heaven.’

^{page 22 note 3} See Jeremias, op. cit. p. 146 (Eng. ed. p. 147).

^{page 22 note 4} Cf. the version in the Gospel of Thomas (log. 96).

^{page 22 note 5} With reference to the strongly negative associations which leaven normally has in the Jewish metaphorical tradition, H.Odeberg finds it necessary to interpret the parable of the leaven as a warning against evil, in line with such passages as Matt. xvi. 5–12 and par.; I Cor. v. 6–8; Gal. v. 1–12, Herren kommer (1962), pp. 199–201. Examples of a positive use of the metaphor are however given by Billerbeck, Komm. I, 728 f. (N.B. correction in III, 359.)

^{page 23 note 1} As I understand it, the logion about salt in Matt. v. 13 is about the duty of the disciples to sacrifice themselves and die for others. The model here is the salt which seems to ‘die’ in the sacrificial meat, but which, when it vanishes, in fact makes the whole sacrifice like itself and pleasing to God. See my commentary in Ur Nya Testament, ed. L. Hartman (1970), pp. 135–6.

^{page 24 note 1} These remarks can complement the observations of Schippers, R. in his article ‘The Mashalcharacter of the Parable of the Pearl’, in Studia Evangelica, ed. Cross, F. L., II, I (1964), 236–41.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 1} The strange phrase that the net is drawn up when it is full (ότε έπληρώθη) is not normal fishing practice. Here the meaning of the parable–the eschatological measure which must be filled – is coming to the fore. Light is thrown on the language by II Esdras xiii. 52: ‘Just as no one can explore or know what is in the depths of the sea, so no one on earth can see my Son or those who are with him, except in the time of his day.’ As to the mixed fishes in the net cf. Hab. i. 13–15.

^{page 26 note 1} Many questions must be asked in considering the genuineness of these parables, among them: Is the situation presupposed in these parables possible at the time of Jesus, or not until the time of the early church?

^{page 28 note 1} Cerfaux, L., ‘Fructifiez en supportant (l'épreuve)’, Recueil L. Cerfaux, III (1962), 112.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 1} See my article ‘Geistiger Opferdienst nach Matth. 6, 1–6. 16–21’, in Neues Testament und Geschichte, Festschrift O. Cullmann, ed. B. Reicke and H. Baltensweiler (1972), pp. 69–78.

^{page 30 note 1} For detailed analysis cf. Jeremias, op. cit. pp. 79–83, 222–4 (Eng. ed. pp. 81–5, 224 f.); idem, ‘Die Deutung des Gleichnisses vom Unkraut unter dem Weizen’, in Neotestamentica et Patristica, Festschrift O. Cullmann, ed. W. C. van Unnik (1962), pp. 59–63;Google Scholar and observations in de Goedt, M., ‘L' explication de la parabole de l' Ivraie’, in Revue Biblique, LXVI (1959), 32–54.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 1} See above, p. 19 n. 1.

^{page 33 note 1} The Matthean parable-material has certain peculiarities (cf. Jeremias, op. cit. pp. 64–88, Eng. ed. pp. 66–89); snap generalizations must therefore be avoided.

^{page 33 note 2} See e.g. II Esdras iv. 38–43; v. 45–9; vii. 45–61, 102–5.

^{page 33 note 3} See the brilliant chapter on ‘the artistic symbol’ in the philosopher John Landquist's book Människokunskap (2nd ed. 1971), pp. 57–95.Google Scholar Stimulating points of view on the parables are to be found in articles by Tinsley, E. J., ‘Parable, Allegory and Mysticism’, in Vindications, ed. A. T. Hanson (1966), pp. 153–91Google Scholar; ‘Parable and Allegory’, The Church Quarterly, III (1970), 32–9Google Scholar; ‘Parables and the Self-Awareness of Jesus’, ibid. IV (1971), 18–26.

^{page 34 note 1} I have tried to demonstrate this more precisely in my article ‘Bibelns ethos’, in Etik och kristentro, ed. G. Wingren (1971), pp. 13–92, esp. 32–54.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} To observe that όμοία έστίν is a natural Greek formula (see above, p. 18 n. 1) might point in a certain direction, though it does not help much. There were similar formulae in Hebrew and Aramaic. On the introductory formulae of the parables, see e.g. Dupont, J., ‘Le Royaume des Cieux est semblable à…’, Bibbia e Oriente, VI (1964), 247–53.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 2} On the motif ‘understanding’ in Matthew's gospel, see Bornkamm, G., Barth, G., Held, H. J., Überlieferung und Kirche im Matthäus-evangelium (4th ed. 1965), pp. 99–104.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} This article has been translated by the Rev. John Toy.