Matthew 25:1-13 claimed a Jesus tradition which assumed a groom with ten virgin brides. The groom was a positive figure in that story - in fact, no less a figure than the Messiah, possibly even God Himself.
The point of that parable is not of course polygyny (we cannot say "polygamy"; this passage cites just the one marriage), but the expectation of the coming "Kingdom of Heaven". The parable's background, though, is interesting enough in light of modern Christian doctrine that it bears investigation in its own right. This project looks at its original form, its temporal context, and the Gospels' use of it.
The Jesus Seminar's The Complete Gospels note this pericope's thematic parallels with Luke 12:35-38; for that latter pericope, the book notes its own parallels with Mark 13:33-37; and all three are similar musings on being prepared for an imminent Hour.
Now, the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and Matthew as a whole agree with each other so closely, that they may be read "with the same eye" in their original Greek. They are therefore labelled the "synoptic gospels". The "Synoptic Problem" in Biblical research is the ongoing question over how these three relate to one another; most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark best reflects the "first Gospel".
In this case, Luke 12:35-38 shares with Matthew 25:1-13 the following concepts- the lamps, that the master is coming from a wedding rather than a journey, and that the waiting hopefuls can expect a reward. And each pericope is attached to Luke 12:39-40 // Matt 24:42-44 (albeit in opposition). John Kloppenborg's Q Parallels p. 136 cites a number of scholars who believe that this is no coincidence, but an example of the Synoptic Problem.
Kloppenborg cites Schürmann (1968 pp. 124,213,233), that Luke reflects the original and that Matthew expanded it. Schürmann pointed to fulakhi and ekaino in Matt 24:43 as against Luke 12:39, and concluded that Matt 24:43 shows knowledge of Luke 12:38. This would seem to pin the polygyny charge upon Matthew alone.
However, it is equally possible that Luke 12:38-39 is showing knowledge of Matt 24:43, shifting fulakhi and ekaino back a verse, from what would become Luke 12:39 to 12:38. To establish priority, it is indeed helpful to find words in a different place relative to the two sources. But that is not enough. One must show the words in one context are stray - that they do not make sense in that context. The case is not at all proven here.
So: is there a Luke 12:35-38 // Matt 25:1-13 parallel that can count as stray in one of its contexts?
In Luke, the master - who is God, or the Messiah - has just left a wedding. But why has he left a wedding? It is more standard for the master to go on a temporary "journey" (as in Mark 13:33-37, and Mark 12 for that matter). In addition the wedding is a common Synoptic metaphor for a coming joyous unity with God. The Master should not be leaving the wedding; He should be arriving, or else already present inviting His bride(s) and/or guests.
Matthew, here, focuses not on the wedding but on the coming of the bridegroom to the wedding chamber. One may read this such that the bridegroom has already had the ceremony. This would have been unimportant to Matthew (and therefore went unmentioned); it only poses a problem for later authors who might wish to paraphrase the story.
My conclusion is that this is intertextual strain between Matthew and Luke - and that Luke is dependent on Matthew 25:1-13.
The next question is, why did Luke preserve so little of the parable? But that answer is much easier. Luke was the feminist of the Evangelists and some commentators have even wondered whether Luke was female. Polygyny was just not a topic that Luke wanted to introduce into her book.
The last question is, whence did Matthew get the story? To untangle this, one might resort to another scholarly hypothesis which said scholars haven't actually used in this case: the Q hypothesis. This piggybacks upon the Markan Priority hypothesis, but is much more controversial. In brief, it claims that Matthew and Luke independently used another source in addition to Mark - a "sayings gospel" (i.e. Jesus ahadith collection) common to both, imaginatively enough called Quelle ("Source") in German, Q for short. As an example, Kloppenborg states that Luke 12:39-40 // Matt 24:42-44 is claimed part of Q, and with far less controversy than Luke 12:35-38 // Matt 25:1-13. But Q is not needed here. It is enough that Matthew does not elsewhere endorse polygamy but that he does elsewhere quote earlier traditions (Mark's); it is more likely here, too, that he quoted an earlier tradition.
The Jesus Seminar (The Five Gospels p. 254) felt that the story was "hand in glove with Matthew's
own perspective, ... to distinguish those who deserve to be admitted to the
wedding banquet from those who are not properly attired (Matt 22:1-14)
".
As for Jesus, the parable "does not cut against the religious and social grain
"; and so it is either not authentic, or else - most likely - it is not one of Jesus's important parables from the Seminar's perspective.
What is beyond dispute, is that this parable - ergo, polygyny - reflects the background of a first-century Jewish apocalyptic community. Since the parable ended up within Christianity, it is easiest to assume that that apocalyptic community was Christianity. It is also possible the apocalypticists merely merged with Christianity after Jesus's death (c.f. Burton Mack's redactional model of Q) but that is a much less provable hypothesis, and besides makes an a priori assumption as to the definition of "the first Christianity".
Besides, Matthew believed that Jesus had cited this parable. Luke did not approve of its sentiments, and therefore chose to borrow only a few images from it - but in so doing, even she showed that this parable existed, be it in Matthew, Q, or both.
Any thoughts? e-mail me :^) zimriel@sbcglobal.net
This was originally part of that 23 July 2003 blog entry linked above. But I soon realised most of it belonged here. In this format, written 23-24 July.