Waiting Maidens Parable

How to cite this article:
Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Waiting Maidens Parable,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/29062/].

(Matt. 25:1-13)^[1] 

Updated: 16 January 2026

‏[וַיִּמְשׁוֹל לָהֶם מָשָׁל לֵאמֹר לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה]‏ לְעֶשֶׂר בְּתוּלוֹת שֶׁנָּטְלוּ לַפִּידִים וְיָצְאוּ לִקְרַאת הֶחָתָן חָמֵשׁ מֵהֶן הָיוּ טִפְּשׁוֹת וְחָמֵשׁ מֵהֶן הָיוּ פִּקְחוֹת הַטִּפְּשׁוֹת לֹא נָטְלוּ שֶׁמֶן וְהַפִּקְחוֹת נָטְלוּ שֶׁמֶן בַּפַּכִּים וְנִתְנַמְנְמוּ כּוּלָן וְיָשְׁנוּ כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה וְהָיְתָה צְעָקָה הֲרֵי הֶחָתָן צְאוּ לִקְרָאתוֹ וְנִתְעוֹרְרוּ כָּל אוֹתָן הַבְּתוּלוֹת וְהֵטִיבוּ אֶת הַלַּפִּידִים וְאָמְרוּ הַטִּפְּשׁוֹת לַפִּקְחוֹת תְּנוּ לָנוּ מִשַּׁמְנְכֶן וְעָנוּ הַפִּקְחוֹת לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא לֹא יִהְיֶה מַסְפִּיק לָנוּ וְלָכֶן אֲבָל לְכוּ לַמּוֹכְרִים וּקְחוּ וְהָלְכוּ וּבָא הֶחָתָן וְהַבְּתוּלוֹת הַפִּקְחוֹת נִכְנְסוּ עִמּוֹ [לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה] וְנִנְעֶלֶת הַדֶּלֶת וּבָאוּ הַבְּתוּלוֹת הַטִּפְּשׁוֹת [וְהִתְחִילוּ לַעֲמוֹד בַּחוּץ וְלִדְפּוֹק עַל הַדֶּלֶת] לוֹמַר אֲדוֹנֵנוּ פְּתַח לָנוּ וְעָנָה וְאָמַר לֹא יָדַעְתִּי אֶתְכֶן

[And he told them a parable, saying, “To what may the matter be compared?] To ten maidens who took torches and went out to meet a groom. Five of them were foolish, and five of them were sensible. The foolish ones did not take oil, but the sensible ones took oil in cruses. They all became weary and fell asleep. At about midnight there was a shout: ‘The groom approaches! Go out to meet him!’ All those maidens awoke and trimmed their torches. The foolish ones said to the sensible ones, ‘Give us some of your oil.’ But the sensible ones answered, saying, ‘We fear there may not be enough for all of us. But go to the sellers and buy some.’ So off they went. The groom arrived and the sensible maidens entered with him [into the wedding hall], and the door was closed. Then the foolish maidens arrived [and they began to stand outside and to knock on the door], saying, ‘Our lord! Open up! Let us in!’ But in reply he answered, ‘I don’t know who you are!’”^[2] 

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Waiting Maidens parable click on the link below:

In addition to the reconstruction provided above, we note that David Flusser included a translation/reconstruction of the Waiting Maidens parable in a Hebrew article,^[3] which reads as follows:

אז תידמה מלכוּת השמים לעשר בתוּלוֹל אשר לקחו את נרותיהן ויצאו לקראת החתן חמש מהן פיקחות וחמש טיפשות. לקחו הטיפשות את הנרוֹת ולא לקחו עמהן שמן, והפיקחות לקחו שמן בכליהן ואת נרותיהן. וכאשר בושש החתן לבוא, התנמנמו כולן וישנוּ. ובחצות הלילה נשמעה צעקה: הנה החתן, צאינה לקראתו! אז התעוררו כל הבתוּתוֹת ההן והטיבו את נרותיהן. אמרו הטיפשות אל הפיקחות: תנו לנו משמנכן כי כבו נרותינו! ענו הפיקחות לאמר: לא כן פן לא יספיק לנו ולכן, כי אם לכנה אל המוכרים וקנינו לכן. וכאשר הלכו אלה לקנות בא החתן והמוכנות באו עמו אל החתונה והדלת נסגרה. אחר כך באו גם יתר הבתוּתוֹת ואמרו: אדונינו, פתח לנו! והוא ענה ואמר: אמן אומר אני לכן, לא ידעתי אתכן! לכן הווּ ערים, כי אינכם יודעים את היום ואת השעה.‏

Then the Kingdom of Heaven will be like ten maidens who took their lamps and went out to meet the groom. Five of them were sensible, and five were foolish. The foolish ones took the lamps, but they did not take oil with them, and the sensible ones took oil in their vessels and their torches. And as the groom delayed in coming, they all became drowsy and fell asleep. And at midnight a shout was heard: “Behold the groom! Go out to meet him!” Then all those maidens awoke and they trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the sensible ones, “Give us some of your oil, because our lamps have gone out!” The sensible ones replied, saying, “Not so, lest there will not be enough for us and for you. But go to the sellers and buy for yourselves.” And as these went to buy, the groom came, and the prepared ones came with him to the wedding, and the door was shut. Afterward, the rest of the maidens also came and said, “Our lord! Open to us!” But he answered and said, “Amen! I say to you, I do not know you!” Therefore, be awake, because you do not know the day or the hour.^[4] 

Story Placement

Matthew’s placement of the Waiting Maidens parable (Matt. 25:1-13) exemplifies the complexity of the synoptic relationships. The author of Matthew placed Waiting Maidens in his version of the eschatological discourse, just after the point where Mark’s Gospel places Be Ready for the Son of Man (Mark 13:33-37 ≈ Matt. 24:42-51). Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man is loosely based on Luke’s (Luke 21:34-36). Luke’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man, which the author of Luke copied from the First Reconstruction (FR), is really a paraphrased summary of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Luke 12:35-38, 41-46)^[5] and Unexpected Thief (Luke 12:39-40), two pericopae the First Reconstructor found joined together in the Anthology (Anth.).^[6] The First Reconstructor used this summary of Faithful or Faithless Slave and Unexpected Thief as a fitting conclusion to his expanded version of Jesus’ prophecy of destruction and redemption.^[7] 

The author of Luke incorporated FR’s prophecy into his Gospel with relatively little change. When the author of Mark reworked Luke’s Gospel he realized that Be Ready for the Son of Man was a doublet of Faithful or Faithless Slave and Unexpected Thief, and he considerably altered his version of Be Ready for the Son of Man in view of this knowledge. The clearest instances of influence of Luke 12:35-46 on Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man are:

1. The statement περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν (“But concerning that day or hour no one knows”; Mark 13:32). Luke’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man does not make any chronological references, but in Faithful or Faithless Slave we read, ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει (“The Lord of that servant will come in a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know”; Luke 12:46).
2. The phrase ἢ ὀψὲ ἢ μεσονύκτιον ἢ ἀλεκτοροφωνίας ἢ πρωΐ (“whether at evening or at midnight or at cockcrow or at morning”; Mark 13:35), which has no counterpart in Luke’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man, is paralleled in Luke’s version of Unexpected Thief: κἂν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ κἂν ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ φυλακῇ (“whether in the second or whether in the third watch [of the night]”; Luke 12:38).
3. The exclamation ὃ δὲ ὑμῖν λέγω πᾶσιν λέγω, γρηγορεῖτε (“But what I say to you I say to everyone, ‘Watch!’”; Mark 13:37), which has no parallel in Luke’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man, reads like an answer to Peter’s question in Faithful or Faithless Slave: κύριε, πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγεις ἢ καὶ πρὸς πάντας (“Lord, do you say this parable to us or also to everyone?”; Luke 12:41).^[8] 

Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man shows hardly any influence from Luke’s Unexpected Thief, which comes between the two parts of his Faithful or Faithless Slave, but perhaps this should not be so surprising, since Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man makes no explicit reference to the Son of Man’s coming.

The author of Mark’s adaptations of Be Ready for the Son of Man in light of Faithful or Faithless Slave prompted the author of Matthew to replace most of Mark’s Be Ready for the Son of Man with Unexpected Thief (Matt. 24:43-44 ∥ Luke 12:39-40) and the second part of Faithful or Faithless Slave (Matt. 24:45-51 ∥ Luke 12:41-46). But the part of Faithful or Faithless Slave the author of Matthew omitted (Luke 12:35-38)—which mentions keeping lamps lit (Luke 12:35), a wedding (Luke 12:36), coming and knocking (Luke 12:36) and opening a door (Luke 12:36)—exerted its influence on Matthew’s Gospel too.^[9] Although he did not include this part of Anth.’s saying in his Gospel, the aforementioned elements reminded the author of Matthew of the Waiting Maidens parable—which features lit torches, a wedding, a closed door and a request that it be opened—and explains why the author of Matthew placed the parable where he did.^[10] Undoubtedly, it did not escape the author of Matthew’s attention that Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man mentions midnight (Mark 13:35) or that the second part of Faithful or Faithless Slave mentions a “sensible” slave (Luke 12:42 ∥ Matt. 24:45). These details would have reinforced his placement of Waiting Maidens following Be Ready for the Son of Man, since Waiting Maidens includes five “sensible” maidens, and the turning point of the parable occurs “at midnight.”

Not only did Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man, which was reworked in light of Faithful or Faithless Slave, influence Matthew’s placement of the Waiting Maidens parable, it also influenced the author of Matthew’s understanding of the parable.^[11] He read the parable as an allegory about the coming of the Son of Man, which taught the need to keep awake and be ready when the Son of Man comes.^[12] To a certain extent, Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man and Anth.’s versions of Unexpected Thief and Faithful or Faithless Slave may also have influenced Matthew’s wording of Waiting Maidens. Nevertheless, the lesson the author of Matthew drew from the parable (“Stay awake, therefore, because you do not know the day or the hour”; Matt. 25:13) does not fit the parable’s details (the maidens certainly knew which night to expect the groom, and both the foolish and the sensible maidens fell asleep),^[13] so we can be reasonably certain that the author of Matthew did not himself compose the Waiting Maidens parable.^[14] If he had, the parable would have done a better job illustrating the point the author of Matthew wanted to make. Moreover, the ease with which so much of Waiting Maidens reverts to Hebrew and the scriptural allusions (see the Conjectured Stages of Transmission discussion below), which appear too subtle for the author of Matthew to have invented on his own, argue in favor of viewing the Waiting Maidens parable as having stemmed from Matthew’s non-Markan source (Anth.).

If Matthew’s placement of the Waiting Maidens parable is not original, but due to the influence of Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man, where might Waiting Maidens have belonged in the pre-synoptic sources? We believe Waiting Maidens may have belonged to a discourse in which Jesus’ calls to social action in response to the divine favor expressed to Israel through the inbreaking of the Kingdom of Heaven were met with resistance. If God is showing us his favor, Jesus’ audience seems to have thought, why should we be inconvenienced by giving up our power, our privilege and our material resources? Can’t God help the poor as he has helped the rich? In response to such attitudes Jesus likened his audience to guests who were invited to a celebration but who made excuses not to attend (Great Banquet parable). Not being put off by their discourteous behavior, the householder invited other guests to join him: the poor, the disabled and the outcast. When you see the feast going on without you, Jesus warned, you’ll want to come in, but the door will be closed (Closed Door). You’ll knock on the door and beg to be admitted, but the householder will dismiss you, denying he ever knew you. Indeed, people from all over are flocking into the Kingdom of Heaven and will take their places with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the eschatological feast, but you will be thrown outside in the dark, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Coming From All Directions). Those whom the social order has unjustly put last will be put first, while you, who have enjoyed preeminence in this crooked society, will be put last (First and Last).

The Waiting Maidens parable seems to recapitulate this argument. The maidens have been invited to a wedding feast. The sensible maidens make provision to join the feast, but the foolish maidens do not. When the groom arrives and the feast begins, the sensible maidens are admitted to the feast, but the foolish maidens miss the opportunity and are shut outside. They beg for admittance, but the groom does not recognize them and refuses to let them in. The point of the parable: be sensible. Just as the sensible maidens provided themselves with oil for their torches, so Jesus’ skeptical audience should provide themselves with acts of mercy toward the wretched and generosity toward those in want. Otherwise, they will be shut outside like the foolish maidens who were unprepared for the feast.

For an overview of this reconstructed discourse, which we have entitled the “Banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven” complex, click here.

.

.

Click here to view the Map of the Conjectured Hebrew Life of Yeshua.

.

.

Conjectured Stages of Transmission

Some scholars believe the Waiting Maidens parable is a tale the author of Matthew spun out of sayings that are now preserved only in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 12:35-36; 13:25).^[15] Others regard the majority of the parable as original, but consider the epilogue, which describes the fate of the foolish maidens (Matt. 25:11-12), to be a secondary addition, since it is paralleled in Luke 13:25 (cf. Matt. 7:21-23).^[16] And still others think that in Luke 12:35-36 and Luke 13:25 the author of Luke preserved remnants of the Waiting Maidens parable.^[17] We do not agree with these assessments.^[18] 

Against attributing the parable to the author of Matthew’s literary creativity are two points we have already mentioned in the Story Placement discussion above. First, the lesson the author of Matthew wished to draw from the parable (“Be awake, for you do not know the day or the hour”) fits so poorly with the parable’s content (in which none of the ten maidens remain awake, and in which all of the maidens know on which night the groom will arrive) that it is far more likely that the author of Matthew repurposed an existing parable than that he concocted one that nevertheless failed to achieve his goal.^[19] Second, some scholars have noted that the Waiting Maidens parable appears to combine motifs from the Passover story in Exodus (the going out of the redeemer at midnight and the shout at the midnight hour; Exod. 11:4-6)^[20] with imagery from the Song of Songs (a woman who sleeps, though her heart is awake, hearing the voice of her lover in the night knocking and asking to be let in; Song 5:2):^[21] 

Exodus 11:4-6	Song of Songs 5:2	Waiting Maidens
	5:2 I am asleep,	All the maidens became drowsy and fell asleep.
11:4 And Moses said, “Thus says the Lord: At about midnight I am going out in the midst of Egypt.		At midnight
11:5 And every firstborn in the land of Egypt will die…
11:6 And there will be a great shout in all the land of Egypt the like of which there has not been nor again will be.”		there was a shout:
		“Go out to meet the groom!”
	but my heart is awake.	All the maidens arose.
	The voice of my lover! He knocks:	And the door was shut.
	“Open to me, my sister, my beloved, my dove, my flawless one,	“Lord! Open to us!”
	for my head is full of dew, my locks with the drops of the night.”

The combination of Exod. 11:4-6 and Song 5:2 in the Waiting Maidens parable is accomplished in a manner too subtle for the author of Matthew, who preferred to quote Scripture explicitly and announce its fulfillment. The combining of the Passover story with imagery from Song of Songs is more likely to have taken place in a Jewish milieu than in the author of Matthew’s Gentile community,^[22] since the rabbinic sages typically read Song of Songs as an allegory of God’s love for Israel expressed through the redemption from Egypt in the past, which will be paralleled by Israel’s final redemption in the future. Moreover, as we saw in the Fig Tree parable, at least one other of Jesus’ parables was constructed from imagery and motifs from a passage in Song of Songs,^[23] so the Song of Songs motifs in the Waiting Maidens parable lend credence to the parable’s origin in the teachings of Jesus.^[24] 

Against the supposition that the epilogue of the parable, which describes how the foolish maidens were shut out of the wedding banquet and denied entry, is a secondary addition are also two considerations. First, from the beginning of the parable the focus is on the foolish maidens.^[25] It is the foolish maidens who are mentioned (L5) before the sensible maidens (L6), and their folly is described (L7-8) before the prudent measures taken by the sensible maidens (L9-10). Likewise, when the summons to meet the groom is issued, it is the foolish maidens who first speak up with the request for oil (L19-20), and only then are the voices of the sensible maidens heard (L22-24). Since the parable’s focus has been on the foolish maidens, omitting their fate would leave the parable unresolved and leave the audience wondering about what happened to the foolish maidens.^[26] Second, the epilogue concerning the fate of the foolish maidens contains Song of Songs motifs (the locked door and the plea to open it) that make the parable intelligible. That the details in Matt. 25:11-12 complement the imagery drawn from Exod. 11:4-6 and Song 5:2 so perfectly makes it unlikely that this was merely the result of coincidence. The presence of Song of Songs motifs in the epilogue rather suggests that the epilogue is an integral part of the parable.

With respect to the view that in Luke 12:35-36 and Luke 13:25 the author of Luke preserved traces of the Waiting Maidens parable, we note the following. First, in our Story Placement discussion above, we presented evidence that the section of Anth. preserved in Luke 12:35-38 (Faithful or Faithless Slave [Part One]), though absent in Matthew, influenced Matthew’s placement of Waiting Maidens following his versions of Unexpected Thief and Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part Two). If Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) influenced Matthew’s placement of Waiting Maidens, then Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) cannot itself be a fragment of the Waiting Maidens parable. Second, it is unlikely that Luke 13:25 (part of Closed Door) is a fragment of Waiting Maidens because, just as Luke’s Gospel contains the pericope sequence Narrow Gate→Closed Door→Coming From All Directions in a single continuous block, so Matthew’s Gospel contains the pericope sequence Narrow Gate…Closed Door…Coming From All Directions interspersed among other pericopae in chapters 6 and 7 (the end of the Sermon on the Mount and the narratives that follow shortly thereafter). The Lukan-Matthean pericope order agreement suggests that in their shared source these pericopae (Narrow Gate, Closed Door and Coming From All Directions) were grouped together, as they still are in Luke. Therefore, if the author of Matthew knew Closed Door as an independent pericope, it cannot be regarded as a fragment of the Waiting Maidens parable.

In our view, the reason Waiting Maidens repeats some of the content of Closed Door is not that these pericopae are doublets, or that Closed Door is a fragment of Waiting Maidens, but that the Waiting Maidens parable was intended as an illustration of the teaching contained in Closed Door and associated sayings belonging to the “Banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven” complex. Therefore, the parable intentionally recapitulates some of the wording of the foregoing discourse, just as by referring to those who “have no need of repentance” the Lost Sheep simile (L38) repeated some of Jesus’ reply to his critics in Call of Levi (L59).^[27] The parable repeated phrases from Call of Levi because it was designed to illustrate Jesus’ argument there. So here, too, Waiting Maidens repeats wording from Closed Door because the parable was designed to illustrate the argument of which Closed Door was a part.

Having defended the integrity of the Waiting Maidens parable as a pericope derived from Matthew’s non-Markan source (i.e., Anth.) rather than a Matthean composition, it remains to be stated that Matthew’s version of Waiting Maidens was nonetheless affected by external influences. We have already suggested in the Story Placement discussion above that the wording of Matthew’s version of Waiting Maidens may have been influenced by Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man and by Anth.’s versions of Unexpected Thief and Faithful or Faithless Slave.

It also appears that a limited degree of “cross-pollination” occurred between Matthew’s versions of Houses on Rock and Sand and Waiting Maidens. On the one hand, the characterizations of the two builders as “sensible” and “foolish” in Matthew’s version of Houses on Rock and Sand appear to have crossed over from the Waiting Maidens parable.^[28] On the other hand, the way the foolish maidens address the groom in Waiting Maidens seems to have crossed over from Houses on Rock and Sand. Both the Lukan and Matthean versions of Houses on Rock and Sand open with a critical remark from Jesus about those who appeal to him with the double vocative κύριε κύριε (kūrie kūrie, “Lord! Lord!”; Houses on Rock and Sand, L2). When the author of Matthew interpolated his version of Closed Door into the opening of Houses on Rock and Sand,^[29] he repeated the double vocative (Houses on Rock and Sand, L10 = Closed Door, L10), whereas Luke’s version of Closed Door only has a single vocative. The best explanation for the double vocative in Matthew’s version of Closed Door is that it reflects the double vocative in Houses on Rock and Sand, L2.^[30] So, too, in Matthew’s version of the Waiting Maidens parable, the double vocative (L36) in the scene that so resembles the scenario described in Closed Door is most likely due to Matthean cross-pollination.

In addition to the influence of other pericopae in Anth., it is possible that the eschatological prophecy now preserved at the end of the Didache influenced Matthew’s version of the Waiting Maidens parable.^[31] The Didache was likely produced by the same broader community for which the Gospel of Matthew was written, so mutual influence between the Didache (or its sources) and the Gospel of Matthew is only to be expected.^[32] Moreover, we have found that the eschatological prophecy in Didache 16 influenced other parts of Matthew’s eschatological discourse (see Son of Man’s Coming, Comment to L25-31) as well as parts of the Sermon on the Mount.^[33] Thus, according to the Didache’s eschatological prophecy, we read:

Γρηγορεῖτε ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν· οἱ λύχνοι ὑμῶν μὴ σβεσθήτωσαν, καὶ αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκλυέσθωσαν, ἀλλὰ γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι· οὐ γὰρ οἶδατε τὴν ὥραν, ἐν ᾗ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἔρχεται.

Be awake for your life: let your lamps not be extinguished, and your loins not be ungirded, but be ready! For you do not know the hour in which your lord comes. (Did. 16:1)

The similarity of this exhortation in the Didache to Matthew’s version of the Waiting Maidens parable is clear. Similar to Did. 16:1, Matthew’s parable refers to the torches of the foolish maidens going out (L20), and like Did. 16:1 the author of Matthew used the Waiting Maidens parable to teach the lesson that his readers should stay awake (L40), for they do not know the day or the hour (L41-42). Nevertheless, Did. 16:1 bears a stronger resemblance to Luke 12:35-36:^[34] 

ἔστωσαν ὑμῶν αἱ ὀσφύες περιεζωσμέναι καὶ οἱ λύχνοι καιόμενοι καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅμοιοι ἀνθρώποις προσδεχομένοις τὸν κύριον ἑαυτῶν….

Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning, and be like people waiting for their own lord…. (Luke 12:35-36)

Both Luke and the Didache refer to the girding up of one’s loins, a theme that is not present at all in Matthew’s parable. Moreover, the Didache’s agreement with Luke to refer to lamps rather than torches, as in Matthew’s parable, offers further evidence against the theory that Luke 12:35-36 is merely a fragment of the Waiting Maidens parable.

Crucial Issues

1. What kind of lights (lamps, torches, lanterns) do the maidens in the parable take with them?
2. Is the Waiting Maidens parable an allegory?
3. What is message of the Waiting Maidens parable?

Comment

L1 τότε ὁμοιωθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Matt. 25:1). The introduction the author of Matthew gave to the Waiting Maidens parable bears all the markings of Matthean redaction.^[35] The adverb τότε (tote, “then”), which the author of Matthew used to suggest that the consequence of being caught out as a faithless servant when the Lord returns (Matt. 24:48-51) will be like the fate of the foolish maidens in the parable,^[36] is typical of Matthean redaction.^[37] Likewise, the future passive verb ὁμοιωθήσεται (homoiōthēsetai, “it will be likened”) is un-Hebraic and, in the synoptic tradition, found only in Matthew’s Gospel.^[38] Its use in the Waiting Maidens parable is the first instance of cross-pollination from the Houses on Rock and Sand parable, where, in L29 and L54, the author of Matthew used it to compare the fates of Torah-observant and non-Torah-observant Christians to the sensible and foolish builders of houses on rock and sand.^[39] Finally, the equation of the Kingdom of Heaven with the Son of Man’s coming is a secondary theological development not characteristic of the teaching of Jesus.^[40] Thus, it does not appear that Matthew preserves the original introduction to the Waiting Maidens parable.

[εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς παραβολὴν λέγων τίνι ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὅμοιος (GR). Our Greek reconstruction of the introduction to the Waiting Maidens parable is modeled after the introductions to other parables in the Gospels such as the Lukan versions of the Mustard Seed and Starter Dough parables. There we find the statement “And he said to them a parable, saying” followed by opening questions, “To what is the Kingdom of Heaven similar? And to what may I compare it?” (Luke 13:18, 20). In Waiting Maidens the original topic was probably not the Kingdom of Heaven^[41] but the skeptical response of Jesus’ audience to the social implications of his message. We have therefore formulated the question as τίνι ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὅμοιος (tini ho logos estin homoios, “To what is the matter similar?”),^[42] a question that is paralleled in numerous rabbinic parables. Because our Greek reconstruction in L1 is entirely conjectural, we have placed both GR and HR within brackets.

[וַיִּמְשׁוֹל לָהֶם מָשָׁל לֵאמֹר לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה] (HR). On reconstructing εἰπεῖν + παραβολή (eipein + parabolē, “to tell [lit., say]” + “a parable”) with מָשַׁל מָשָׁל (māshal māshāl, “tell a parable”), see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L8-9.

On reconstructing παραβολή (parabolē, “parable”) with מָשָׁל (māshāl, “parable”), see Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L19.

On reconstructing λέγειν (legein, “to say”) with אָמַר (’āmar, “say”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L15.

On reconstructing τίς (tis, “who?” “what?”) with מָה (māh, “what?”), see Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry, Comment to L5.

On reconstructing λόγος (logos, “word”) with דָּבָר (dāvār, “word,” “thing”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L24.

On reconstructing ὅμοιος (homoios, “similar,” “like”) with דּוֹמֶה (dōmeh, “similar,” “like”), see Mustard Seed and Starter Dough, Comment to L4.

L2 ὅμοιός ἐστιν] δέκα παρθένοις αἵτινες λαβοῦσαι (GR). We have adopted Matthew’s wording for GR in L2. However, at the beginning of the line we have supplied, in brackets, the phrase ὅμοιός ἐστιν (homoios estin, “it is like”), since a similar answer to the rhetorical question in Jesus’ parables also appears in Mustard Seed and Starter Dough (L7, L29) and Like Children Complaining (L4).

לְעֶשֶׂר בְּתוּלוֹת שֶׁנָּטְלוּ (HR). On reconstructing δέκα (deka, “ten”) with עֶשֶׂר (‘eser, “ten”), see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L40.

The number ten in the parable is not intended to be symbolic.^[43] The contrast between “sensible” and “foolish” only required two maidens, but the demands of the narrative required a larger group to make up the wedding procession.^[44] A group of six maidens might have sufficed, but as Flusser observed, groups of threes in folktales and parables tend to have an ascending function (e.g., good→better→best), which is not operative in Waiting Maidens,^[45] and therefore might have confused Jesus’ audience. Ten, however, springs naturally to mind as a number that can stand for a moderately large group which can be evenly divided into opposing parties, like ten fingers with five on the right hand and five on the left, or ten toes with five on the left foot and five on the right.^[46] 

Some scholars have drawn attention to a medieval commentary on m. Kel. 2:8, which mentions torches, that states:

יש מנהג בארץ ישמעאל שמוליכין הכלה מבית אביה לבית בעלה בלילה קודם כניסתה לחופה ומוליכין לפניה כעשר קונדסין ובראש הקונדס כעין קערה של נחושת ובתוכה חתוכי בגדים ושמן ועיטרן ומדליקין אותו ומאירין בפניה

There is a custom in the land of Ishmael [i.e., Arabia—DNB and JNT] when they bring the bride from the house of her father to the house of her husband in the night, before her entry into the wedding canopy, they bring before her about ten poles,^[47] and at the top of each pole there is a kind of bronze dish, and in it are strips of cloth and oil and resin. And they kindle them and they give light before her. (Rabbi Samson ben Abraham of Sens [RaSh] on m. Kel. 2:8)^[48] 

However, since the description of this custom refers to a different time and place than first-century Israel,^[49] its relevance for understanding the significance of the number ten in the Waiting Maidens parable is dubious.^[50] 

In LXX παρθένος (parthenos, “virgin,” “young person”) usually occurs as the translation of בְּתוּלָה (b^etūlāh, “virgin,” “maiden”).^[51] We also find that the LXX translators usually rendered בְּתוּלָה as παρθένος.^[52] Less frequently παρθένος occurs as the translation of נַעֲרָה (na‘^arāh, “girl”), but elsewhere in LOY we have used נַעֲרָה as the reconstruction for κοράσιον (korasion, “girl”),^[53] so בְּתוּלָה remains the best option for HR.^[54] We have preferred to use the term “maiden” in our reconstruction and commentary as the English equivalent of παρθένος and בְּתוּלָה because in English “virgin” has a sexualized connotation that was probably not present in the original parable.^[55] The maidens of the parable are probably best understood as young women who have just reached marriageable age (cf. m. Nid. 1:4).^[56] 

On reconstructing ὅστις (hostis, “who,” “whoever”) with -שֶׁ (she-, “who,” “which”), see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L38.

On reconstructing λαμβάνειν (lambanein, “to take”) with נָטַל (nāṭal, “lift,” “take”), see Mustard Seed and Starter Dough, Comment to L10.

L3 λαμπάδας (GR). We have four reasons for suspecting that the definite article and the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῦ (heavtou, “of himself”) attached to λαμπάς (lampas, “torch”) may be the product of Matthean redaction. First, we have found several other instances of ἑαυτοῦ, when used as the equivalent of αὐτοῦ (avtou, “of him”), to be redactional elsewhere in LOY.^[57] Second, it seems likely that the emphasis on possession in the parable (“their own torches,” L3; “their own torches,” L7; “with themselves,” L8; “their own torches,” L10; “their own torches,” L17; “buy for yourselves,” L24) is related to the author of Matthew’s redactional emphasis on preparedness both in the parable (see below, Comment to L27) and in its surrounding context (cf. Matt. 24:44). Third, the point of the parable (i.e., “Be sensible with regard to the invitation to participate in the Kingdom of Heaven!”) loses nothing by the omission of the possessives and gains nothing by their inclusion, which suggests that the possessives are a secondary accretion. Fourth, it is possible that the author of Matthew picked up the use of the reflexive pronoun from Faithful or Faithless Slave (Part One) (L6), where the reflexive pronoun occurs (Luke 12:36). We have therefore eliminated Matthew’s definite article and reflexive pronoun from GR.

לַפִּידִים (HR). There has been a surprising amount of scholarly discussion concerning the identity of the lights in the Waiting Maidens parable, despite the fact that λαμπάς (lampas) unambiguously means “torch,”^[58] while there are no certain instances of λαμπάς meaning “lamp” in Classical or Koine Greek sources.^[59] Moreover, the logic of the parable demands “torches,” which were used for outdoor lighting,^[60] rather than “lamps,” which were for indoor use as they easily blew out in any kind of wind.^[61] Nevertheless, numerous scholars seem to prefer the meaning “lamps” in Matthew’s parable,^[62] either because they think Matthew’s parable is based on the saying preserved in Luke 12:35, which definitely mentions “lamps,” or because they believe that the “trimming” of the lights (Matt. 25:7 [L17]) is appropriate to “lamps” but not to “torches,”^[63] or, perhaps, from an unconscious bias due to the fact that the English term “lamp” derives from λαμπάς (“torch”) (also true for French and German).^[64] 

With regard to the “trimming” of torches, it may be true that for simple firebrand-type torches that burn oil- or resin-soaked cloths wrapped at their ends “kindle” would be more appropriate than “trim.”^[65] However, in the ancient world there were more sophisticated torches than the simple firebrand or “natural” torch. So-called “vessel torches” were equipped with fuel reservoirs that held oil and a wick, beneath which was a protective pan to keep hot oil and flames from dripping down on the bearer. This vessel was affixed to the top of a pole.^[66] Vessel and pole together were referred to as a torch.^[67] When lit, vessel torches could burn for some hours before refueling was required.^[68] It is precisely to this type of torch that Rabbi Samson ben Abraham of Sens referred in the quotation cited above in Comment to L2. “Trim” could apply equally to a lamp or a vessel torch, since both were equipped with a wick. Thus “[vessel] torch” is almost certainly what was meant by λαμπάς in the Waiting Maidens parable.^[69] 

In LXX λαμπάς (lampas, “torch”) almost always occurs as the translation of לַפִּיד (lapid, “torch”).^[70] Moreover, the LXX translators always rendered לַפִּיד as λαμπάς,^[71] which makes לַפִּיד an excellent candidate for HR. Although in Mishnaic Hebrew אֲבוּקָה (’^avūqāh) was also a term meaning “torch,” it appears that whereas אֲבוּקָה referred to firebrand-style torches, לַפִּיד was the term used in Mishnaic Hebrew for a vessel torch,^[72] so לַפִּיד remains the best option for HR.^[73] 

Some scholars import into the Waiting Maidens parable the idea of the young women performing a dance with the torches.^[74] But while dancing with torches is attested in ancient sources,^[75] this custom is not mentioned with regard to ancient Jewish weddings. In modern scholarship the notion of a dance comes from ethnographic observations of Arab dances in Palestine in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.^[76] The parable describes the maidens meeting the groom with torches to light the way to the banquet; it is silent with respect to any dance.

L4 ἐξῆλθον εἰς ὑπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου (GR). We have adopted all of Matthew’s wording in L4 for GR since it easily reverts to Hebrew.^[77] 

In some textual witnesses to Matt. 25:1 we find the addition of the phrase καὶ τῆς νύμφης (kai tēs nūmfēs, “and the bride”) after ἐξῆλθον εἰς ὑπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου (exēlthon eis hūpantēsin tou nūmfiou, “they went out to meet the groom”). Although some scholars have defended this longer reading,^[78] it is more probable that it is a scribal addition meant to supply a reference to the bride, who is otherwise conspicuous by her absence from the parable.^[79] Had the bride originally been mentioned at this point in the parable, then her delay would surely have been mentioned along with the groom’s in Matt. 25:5 (L11) and, likewise, her coming would have been announced along with the groom’s in Matt. 25:6 (L14).^[80] 

Play

וְיָצְאוּ לִקְרַאת הֶחָתָן (HR). On reconstructing ἐξέρχεσθαι (exerchesthai, “to go out”) with יָצָא (yātzā’, “go out”), see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L98.

On reconstructing ὑπάντησις (hūpantēsis, “meeting”) with לִקְרַאת (liqra’t, “to meet”), see Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L16.

In LXX, whenever νυμφίος (nūmfios, “bridegroom”) occurs in books contained in MT, it always occurs as the translation of חָתָן (ḥātān, “bridegroom,” “son-in-law”).^[81] And although the LXX translators more often rendered חָתָן as γαμβρός (gambros, “son-in-law”) than as νυμφίος (“groom”),^[82] this has to do with the dual senses of חָתָן. There can be little doubt that חָתָן is the best option for HR.

That the going out of the maidens to meet the groom is mentioned twice in the parable, both here in L4 and again in Matt. 25:6 (L15), has caused interpreters some confusion. Did the maidens go out to the city gate or the entrance to the village and wait there for the groom to appear? And when the groom’s approach was announced did they go out further still to meet him?^[83] Or does the opening sentence of the parable simply describe the action that is about to unfold?^[84] 

Neither interpretation is entirely free of difficulties. It is difficult to imagine maidens going out alone into the dark to await the groom, where any number of dangers and perils might assail them. And would they have extinguished their torches before lying down to sleep (for vessel torches must be held upright or the fuel supply will run out), or would they have fallen asleep while holding blazing torches (a dangerous prospect)? On the other hand, to what do the statements that the foolish maidens took no oil with them but that the sensible maidens brought oil along in cruses refer if not “they went out to meet the groom”? However, it may be that such questions ask too much of the parable, which does not describe an actual event^[85] and therefore has no reality behind it. Any details the parable omits are irrelevant to the point the parable wants to make.

If the former interpretation is correct (i.e., that the maidens went out to the city gate to await the groom’s coming), then we may imagine that all the maidens went out with lighted torches, and the oil the sensible maidens brought with them was a backup supply in case the oil was used up before the groom arrived. As they slept all of the torches burned low, but whereas the sensible maidens could replenish their torches with the oil from their flasks, the torches of the foolish maidens burned out. If the latter interpretation is correct (i.e., that the maidens waited at the banqueting hall for the groom’s arrival), then we may imagine that the maidens did not attempt to light their torches until the groom’s approach was announced.^[86] It was then that the foolish maidens discovered that they had no oil at all and therefore could not light them (see below, Comment to L20).^[87] We think the latter interpretation is more likely to be correct (taking along no oil at all would have been truly foolish), but either way the result is the same: the foolish maidens lacked oil at the crucial moment when the groom arrived. Consequently, they could not accompany him with lighted torches to the wedding banquet.

Another question that has vexed interpreters is where is the groom coming from? In rabbinic sources we typically find references to a groom going out to meet his bride, not of guests going out to meet the groom.^[88] The Jewish wedding ceremony was even called הַכְנָסָה (hachnāsāh, “entering,” “bringing in”), referring to the entrance of the bride into her new home with her husband.^[89] To resolve this apparent contradiction some scholars have presumed that the groom in the parable is bringing his bride with him,^[90] while others have supposed that the wedding feast is being held in the home of the bride’s family.^[91] Since the parable does not fill in this detail, it is not important to the point the parable is making.^[92] It is possible, however, that the apparent role reversal of bride and groom is intentional. The surrealism it seems to create may have prepared listeners for the surprise that, despite the strong resonances with Song of Songs, it is the maidens, not the groom, who plead at the door for admittance (cf. Song 5:2).

L5 πέντε ἐξ αὐτῶν ἦσαν μωραὶ (GR). Apart from Matthew’s δέ (de, “but”), which looks like a Greek stylistic improvement, Matthew’s wording in L5 is Hebraic and free of redactional markers. Therefore, with the exception of δέ, we have accepted Matthew’s wording in L5 for GR.^[93] 

חָמֵשׁ מֵהֶן הָיוּ טִפְּשׁוֹת (HR). In a survey of all the instances of πέντε (pente, “five”) in the Pentateuch we found that the vast majority occur as the translation of חָמֵשׁ (ḥāmēsh, “five”).^[94] This fact alone is sufficient to establish חָמֵשׁ as the best option for HR.

In LXX there are a number of examples of cardinal + ἐξ αὐτῶν—similar to πέντε…ἐξ αὐτῶν (“five…from them”) in the Waiting Maidens parable—that occur as the translation of cardinal + מִן + suffix, for instance:

כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם

When brothers live together and one of them [אַחַד מֵהֶם] dies…. (Deut. 25:5)

ἐὰν δὲ κατοικῶσιν ἀδελφοὶ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἀποθάνῃ εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν

But if brothers live together and one of them [εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν] might die…. (Deut. 25:5)

כֹּה אָמַר יי שָׁלֹשׁ אָנֹכִי נוֹטֵל עָלֶיךָ בְּחַר לְךָ אַחַת מֵהֶם וְאֶעֱשֶׂה לָּךְ

Thus says the Lord: Three [things] am I bringing upon you. Choose for yourself one of them [אַחַת מֵהֶם], and I will do it to you. (2 Sam. 24:12; cf. 1 Chr. 21:10)

Τάδε λέγει κύριος Τρία ἐγώ εἰμι αἴρω ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ ἔκλεξαι σεαυτῷ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν, καὶ ποιήσω σοι.

The Lord says this: Three [things] I am raising up against you, and you will choose for yourself one of them [ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν], and I will do it to you. (2 Kgdms. 24:12; cf. 1 Chr. 21:10)

כִּי כָעֵת מָחָר אָשִׂים אֶת־נַפְשְׁךָ כְּנֶפֶשׁ אַחַד מֵהֶם

…that about this time tomorrow I will make your life like the life of one of them [אַחַד מֵהֶם]. (1 Kgs. 19:2)

ὅτι ταύτην τὴν ὥραν αὔριον θήσομαι τὴν ψυχήν σου καθὼς ψυχὴν ἑνὸς ἐξ αὐτῶν

…that this hour tomorrow I will make your life like the life of one of them [ἑνὸς ἐξ αὐτῶν]. (3 Kgdms. 19:2)

We also find a few examples of quantities of ten divided into opposing groups of five:

וַיַּעַשׂ כִּיּוֹרִים עֲשָׂרָה וַיִּתֵּן חֲמִשָּׁה מִיָּמִין וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִשְּׂמֹאול

And he made ten washbasins and put five on the right and five on the left…. (2 Chr. 4:6)

καὶ ἐποίησεν λουτῆρας δέκα καὶ ἔθηκεν τοὺς πέντε ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ τοὺς πέντε ἐξ ἀριστερῶν

And he made ten washbasins and put five on the right and five on the left…. (2 Chr. 4:6)

וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת־מְנֹרוֹת הַזָּהָב עֶשֶׂר כְּמִשְׁפָּטָם וַיִּתֵּן בַּהֵיכָל חָמֵשׁ מִיָּמִין וְחָמֵשׁ מִשְּׂמֹאול

And he made the ten golden lampstands according to their regulation, and he put them in the Temple, five on the right and five on the left. (2 Chr. 4:7)

καὶ ἐποίησεν τὰς λυχνίας τὰς χρυσᾶς δέκα κατὰ τὸ κρίμα αὐτῶν καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐν τῷ ναῷ, πέντε ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ πέντε ἐξ ἀριστερῶν

And he made the ten golden lampstands according to their regulations, and he put them in the Temple, five on the right and five on the left. (2 Chr. 4:7)

וַיַּעַשׂ שֻׁלְחָנוֹת עֲשָׂרָה וַיַּנַּח בַּהֵיכָל חֲמִשָּׁה מִיָּמִין וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִשְּׂמֹאול

And he made ten tables, and he set them in the Temple, five on the right and five on the left. (2 Chr. 4:8)

καὶ ἐποίησεν τραπέζας δέκα καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐν τῷ ναῷ, πέντε ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ πέντε ἐξ εὐωνύμων

And he made ten tables, and he set them in the Temple, five on the right and five on the left. (2 Chr. 4:8)

On reconstructing εἶναι (einai, “to be”) with הָיָה (hāyāh, “be”), see Call of Levi, Comment to L30.

In LXX μωρός (mōros, “stupid,” “foolish”) does not occur often in books contained in MT. But when it does occur, it usually does so as the translation of נָבָל (nāvāl, “foolish”).^[95] But נָבָל seems to have fallen into disuse in Mishnaic Hebrew.^[96] Several other Biblical Hebrew terms meaning “fool” or “foolish,” such as כְּסִיל (k^esil, “fool”), אֱוִיל (’^evil, “foolish”) and סָכָל (sāchāl, “fool”), had also become antiquated. In their place Mishnaic Hebrew generally used the term טִפֵּשׁ (ṭipēsh, “foolish,” “stupid”), which does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures or DSS.^[97] The adjective טִפֵּשׁ is especially common in rabbinic parables, for instance:

ת″ר (קוהלת יב) והרוח תשוב אל האלהים אשר נתנה תנה לו כמו שנתנה לך בטהרה אף אתה בטהרה משל למלך ב″ו שחלק בגדי מלכות לעבדיו פקחין שבהן קיפלום והניחום בקופסא טפשים שבהן הלכו ועשו בהן מלאכה לימים ביקש המלך את כליו פקחין שבהן החזירום לו כשהן מגוהצין טפשין שבהן החזירום לו כשהן מלוכלכין שמח המלך לקראת פקחין וכעס לקראת טפשין על פקחין אמר ינתנו כלי לאוצר והם ילכו לבתיהם לשלום ועל טפשין אמר כלי ינתנו לכובס והן יתחבשו בבית האסורים

Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: And the spirit you will return to the God who gave it [Eccl. 12:7]. Give it to him as he gave it to you: in purity [he gave it], so you in purity [give it back]. A parable. [It may be compared] to a king of flesh and blood who apportioned royal robes to his servants. The most sensible ones among them folded them and laid them in a box. The most foolish [טִפְּשִׁים] among them went and did work in them. After some days the king demanded his things. The most sensible among them returned them to him in sparkling condition. The most foolish ones [טִפְּשִׁין] among them returned them dirty. The king rejoiced over the sensible ones and was angry at the foolish ones [טִפְּשִׁין]. Concerning the sensible ones he said, “Let my things be put in the treasury, and as for them, let them go to their homes in peace.” Concerning the foolish ones [טִפְּשִׁין] he said, “Let my things be given to the launderer, and as for them, let them be confined in the prison.” (b. Shab. 152b)

רבי אליעזר אומר שוב יום אחד לפני מיתתך שאלו תלמידיו את ר″א וכי אדם יודע איזהו יום ימות אמר להן וכל שכן ישוב היום שמא ימות למחר ונמצא כל ימיו בתשובה ואף שלמה אמר בחכמתו (קוהלת ט) בכל עת יהיו בגדיך לבנים ושמן על ראשך אל יחסר א″ר יוחנן בן זכאי משל למלך שזימן את עבדיו לסעודה ולא קבע להם זמן פיקחין שבהן קישטו את עצמן וישבו על פתח בית המלך אמרו כלום חסר לבית המלך טיפשין שבהן הלכו למלאכתן אמרו כלום יש סעודה בלא טורח בפתאום ביקש המלך את עבדיו פיקחין שבהן נכנסו לפניו כשהן מקושטין והטיפשים נכנסו לפניו כשהן מלוכלכין שמח המלך לקראת פיקחים וכעס לקראת טיפשים אמר הללו שקישטו את עצמן לסעודה ישבו ויאכלו וישתו הללו שלא קישטו עצמן לסעודה יעמדו ויראו

…Rabbi Eliezer says, “Repent one day before your death.” His disciples asked Rabbi Eliezer, “And does a person know which day he will die?” He said to them, “And all the more reason you should repent today, lest you die tomorrow. So let him be found all his days in repentance. And even Solomon said in his wisdom, At all times let your clothes be white, and let not oil from your head be lacking [Eccl. 9:8].” Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said, “A parable. [It may be compared] to a king who invited his servants to a dinner, but did not set for them a time. The most sensible among them dressed themselves and sat at the entrance to the king’s house. They said, ‘Is there anything the king’s house lacks?’ The most foolish [טִיפְּשִׁין] among them went to their work. They said, ‘Is there a dinner without preparation?’ Suddenly the king demanded his servants. The most sensible among them entered before him all dressed up, but the most foolish [טִיפְּשִׁים] among them entered before him dirty. The king rejoiced over the sensible ones and was angry at the foolish ones [טִיפְּשִׁים]. He said, ‘These who dressed themselves for the dinner, let them sit and eat and drink. These who did not dress themselves, let them stand and watch!’” (b. Shab. 153a)^[98] 

As has often been noted before, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s parable has many points in common with the Waiting Maidens parable.^[99] As in Waiting Maidens, the main actors are divided into two opposing groups consisting of the “sensible” and the “foolish.” As in Waiting Maidens, the foolish are excluded from a festive meal on account of their foolish behavior. And, as we believe to have been the case with Waiting Maidens, the plot of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s parable was guided by allusions to Scripture (the sensible servants who got dressed up followed Qohelet’s advice to at all times wear white clothing and to have oil on one’s head). For the moment it will be sufficient to note that Yohanan ben Zakkai’s parable appears in a context that advises repentance, a motif that is not explicitly mentioned in our parable but might have bearing on its interpretation nonetheless.

In any case, the use of טִפֵּשׁ in the above-quoted parables and elsewhere in rabbinic literature demonstrates that טִפֵּשׁ is an excellent option for HR.^[100] 

As we noted in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission section above, that the parable mentions the foolish maidens first indicates that they are the focus of the parable. It is their negative example that Jesus wanted to discourage his listeners from following.

L6 καὶ πέντε ἐξ αὐτῶν ἦσαν φρόνιμοι (GR). We have accepted all of Matthew’s wording for GR in L6, but between καὶ πέντε (kai pente, “and five”) and φρόνιμοι (fronimoi, “sensible [ones]”) we have inserted the words ἐξ αὐτῶν ἦσαν (ex avtōn ēsan, “from them were”). We suspect that the author of Matthew may have eliminated these words, which are included in L5, out of a desire for brevity and to avoid redundancy. In any case, we would expect an equivalent to the words we have added to GR to have appeared in the Hebrew vorlage.

וְחָמֵשׁ מֵהֶן הָיוּ פִּקְחוֹת (HR). On reconstructing πέντε (pente, “five”) with חָמֵשׁ (ḥāmēsh, “five”), and on reconstructing εἶναι (einai, “to be”) with הָיָה (hāyāh, “be”), see above, Comment to L5.

In LXX the adjective φρόνιμος (fronimos, “sensible,” “prudent”) is not especially common, but when it occurs it does so with roughly equal frequency as the translation of נָבוֹן (nāvōn, “discerning”), חָכָם (ḥāchām, “wise”) and תְּבוּנָה (t^evūnāh, “understanding”).^[101] Φρόνιμος does not occur in LXX as the translation of פִּקֵּחַ (piqēaḥ, “sensible”), but that is only to be expected, since פִּקֵּחַ does not occur with this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Although חָכָם (“wise”) would be an acceptable option for HR, as חָכָם is often contrasted with טִפֵּשׁ (ṭipēsh, “foolish,” “stupid”) in rabbinic sources,^[102] two points favor reconstructing with פִּקֵּחַ.^[103] First, as we saw in the parables cited above in Comment to L5, פִּקֵּחַ belongs to parabolic vocabulary, especially when contrasted with טִפֵּשׁ.^[104] Second, if the Hebrew source behind the Waiting Maidens parable had used the adjective חָכָם, we would have expected the Greek translator to have used σοφός as its equivalent,^[105] and we have reconstructed σοφός with חָכָם elsewhere in LOY.^[106] The use of φρόνιμος in the parable rather than σοφός suggests that a term other than חָכָם appeared in the underlying Hebrew text. If so, that term was probably פִּקֵּחַ. Indeed, Flusser argued that the use of φρόνιμος in Waiting Maidens preserves the parabolic idiom, with its standard pair of opposites, פִּקֵּחַ (“sensible”) and טִפֵּשׁ (“foolish”).^[107] 

L7 αἱ μωραὶ (GR). Whereas in L6 we suspect the author of Matthew excised some of Anth.’s wording for the sake of brevity, we suspect that in L7 the author of Matthew’s approach was expansionistic. Matthew’s explanatory γάρ (gar, “for”) makes the maidens’ forgetfulness with respect to their oil supply the cause, rather than an effect, of their foolishness.^[108] Such a logical flaw is not uncharacteristic of Matthean redaction, and the addition of γάρ seems to serve the author of Matthew’s redactional interest in stressing the need for preparedness, as the γάρ implies that unpreparedness is the epitome of foolishness.

The superfluous repetition that the foolish maidens took their torches also serves the author of Matthew’s redactional interest in stressing preparedness by underscoring that half measures will be of no avail on the day the Son of Man comes. One is either fully prepared or not prepared at all. For GR we have only accepted two of Matthew’s words in L7: αἱ μωραί (hai mōrai, “the foolish [ones]”).

הַטִּפְּשׁוֹת (HR). On reconstructing μωρός (mōros, “stupid,” “foolish”) with טִפֵּשׁ (ṭipēsh, “foolish,” “stupid”), see above, Comment to L5.

L8 οὐκ ἔλαβον ἔλαιον (GR). There are several reasons why we have omitted Matthew’s prepositional phrase μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν (meth heavtōn, “with themselves”) from GR. As we noted above in Comment to L3, the use of the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῦ (heavtou, “of himself”), when simply used as the equivalent of αὐτοῦ (avtou, “of him”), is often an indicator of Greek redaction. There, too, we noted that the emphasis on possession of the items mentioned in the parable (torches, oil) may reflect the author of Matthew’s redactional emphasis on preparedness: each individual must make himself or herself ready for the Son of Man’s coming. Moreover, the variation between the μετά phrases in L8 and L10 (“with themselves,” L8; “with their own torches,” L10) may hint that these μετά phrases are secondary insertions. But apart from μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν, we have adopted Matthew’s wording in L8 for GR.

לֹא נָטְלוּ שֶׁמֶן (HR). Although we considered reconstructing λαμβάνειν (lambanein, “to take”) in L8 with הֵבִיא (hēvi’, “bring”), adopting a different reconstruction for λαμβάνειν than that which we had used in L2 seemed gratuitous. Reconstructing with נָטַל (nāṭal, “take”), as we did in L2, makes equally good sense and avoids the difficulty of having to explain why two different Hebrew verbs were translated with the one Greek verb λαμβάνειν. On reconstructing λαμβάνειν (lambanein, “to take”) with נָטַל (nāṭal, “take”) see above, Comment to L2.

In LXX ἔλαιον (elaion, “olive oil”) usually occurs as the translation of שֶׁמֶן (shemen, “fat,” “oil”),^[109] and the LXX translators rendered most instances of שֶׁמֶן as ἔλαιον.^[110] 

Olive oil was used for a variety of purposes in the ancient world: as a foodstuff (m. Ket. 5:8),^[111] as a cosmetic (Luke 7:46), as a medicinal salve (Mark 6:13; Luke 10:34), and, perhaps most commonly, as fuel for lighting.^[112] Olive oil was produced in the land of Israel for internal use and also for export.^[113] Because of its value and its many uses, olive oil acquired symbolic as well as ceremonial significance. The oil of olives was used for the anointing of the high priest (Exod. 29:7; Lev. 8:12; Num. 35:25; Ps. 133) and the king (1 Sam. 10:1; 16:13; 1 Kgs. 1:39; Ps. 89:21), and thus had messianic significance (cf. Zech. 4). Olive oil was also symbolic of happiness (Isa. 61:3; Ps. 45:8; Eccl. 9:8) and camaraderie (Ps. 133:2). Since olive oil, which plays such a crucial role in Waiting Maidens, is neither mentioned nor alluded to in the two scriptural passages (Exod. 11:4-6; Song 5:2) that form the basis of the parable’s plot, it may be that the maidens’ oil, or the lack thereof, had a symbolic significance.^[114] 

Above in Comment to L5 we found that olive oil was symbolic of repentance. There Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai interpreted Eccl. 9:8 (“…let not oil be lacking from your head”) as pertaining to the need to live constantly in a state of repentance by means of a parable in which sensible and foolish servants are invited to a banquet. The sensible servants immediately make themselves presentable, not knowing when the banquet will begin (≈ always having oil on one’s head), while the foolish servants put off making themselves presentable until it is too late. That oil could symbolize repentance is of interest with respect to the Waiting Maidens parable, which, as we have seen, alludes to Song 5:2, because in rabbinic circles the words פִּתְחִי לִי (pitḥi li, “Open to me!”), which the lover knocking at the closed door of his beloved’s bedroom spoke to her, were interpreted as a summons to repentance:

פתחי לי, א″ר יסא א′ הקב″ה פתחי לי פתח כחרירה של מחט ואני פותח לכם פתח שיהו אהליות וכצוצטריות ניכנסין בו

Open to me! [Song 5:2]. Rabbi Yose said, “The Holy One, blessed be he, said, ‘Open to me an opening [of repentance—DNB and JNT] the size of the eye of a needle, and I will open for you an opening that camps and siege engines may enter it.’” (Pesikta de-Rav Khana 5:6 [ed. Mandelbaum, 1:87]; cf. Song Rab. 5:2 §2 [ed. Etelsohn, 198])^[115] 

פתח לי פתח של תשובה כדי שאבוא ואגאל אתכם

Open to me [Song 5:2] an opening of repentance so that I may come and redeem you. (Midrash Shir HaShirim 5:2 [ed. Grunhut-Wertheimer, 94])^[116] 

We believe it is warranted, therefore, to consider whether the olive oil in Waiting Maidens has a symbolic value as representing repentance. On the other hand, a version of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s parable about the sensible and foolish servants appears in another context in which oil represents good deeds:

בְּכָל עֵת יִהְיוּ בְגָדֶיךָ לְבָנִים אמ′ רבן יוחנן בן זכאי: אם בבגדים לבנים הכת′ מדבר, כמה בגדים לבנים יש להם לאומות העולם?! ואם בשמנים טובים הכת′ מדבר, כמה שמנים טובים יש לאומות העולם?! הא אינו מדבר אלא במצות ומעשים טובים ותורה. ר′ יהודה הנשיא: מושלו משל, למה הדבר דומה: למלך שעשה סעודה וזימן אצלו אורחים. א″ל: לכו ורחצו, וגהצו, וסכו, ורחצו בגדיכם, והתקינו עצמיכם לסעודה. ולא קבע להם זמן סעודה. הפקחים שבהם הלכו ורחצו, [גהצו,] [וסכו] בגדיהם והתקינו עצמם לסעודה והיו מטיילין על פתח פלטין של מלך. אמרין: כלום פלטין של מלך חסר כלום?! הטפשין שבהן לא השגיחו [ולא הקפידו] על דברי המלך. אמרו…כלום יש סעודה שאין בה טורח?! הלך סייד לסידו ויוצר לטיטו נפח לפחמו, כובס לבית המשרה שלו. פתאום צוה המלך: יבאו הכל לסעודה! [מהרום!] אלו באין בכבודם ואלו באו בניוולן. שמח על הפקחים שקימו דבריו [של מלך ולא עוד אלא] (ו)[ש]כבדו פלטין שלו, וכעס על הטפשין שלא קימו מצותו, ולא עוד אלא שניוולו פלטין של מלך. אמ′ המלך: אלו שהתקינו עצמם לסעודה [יבאו ו]יאכלו מסעודת המלך ואלו שלא התקינו עצמם [לסועדה] לא יאכלו מסעודת המלך. יכול ילכו ויפטרו להם? אמ′ המלך: לא, אלא יהיו אלו אוכלין ושותין ומסובין ואלו יהיו עומדים על רגליהם לוקין, ורואין ומצטערין…[בר קפרא] אמ′…בְּכָל עֵת יִהְיוּ בְגָדֶיךָ לְבָנִים מן העברות וְשֶׁמֶן עַל רֹאשְׂךָ אַל יֶחְסָר ממצות ומעשים טובים.

At all times let your clothes be white [and let oil on your head not be lacking] [Eccl. 9:8]. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said, “If the verse spoke [literally] of white clothes, how many white clothes do the peoples of the world have? And if the verse spoke [literally] of fine oils, how many fine oils do the peoples of the world have? But the verse speaks of nothing other than mitzvot and good deeds and of Torah [study].” Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi [in the name of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai]^[117] made it a comparison. “A parable. To what is the matter similar? To a king who made a feast and invited guests. He said to them, ‘Go and wash and scrub and dress and wash your clothes and prepare yourselves for the feast.’ But he did not set them a time for the feast. And the most sensible [הַפִּקְחִים] among them went and washed [and scrubbed] [and dressed] in their clothes and prepared themselves for the feast. And they were assembling at the door of the king’s palace, saying, ‘There is nothing a king’s palace lacks.’ The most foolish [הַטִּפְּשִׁין] among them did not pay attention or take heed of the king’s word. They said, ‘…Is there any feast that has no preparation?’ So the plasterer went to his plaster, and the potter to his clay, the smith to his charcoal, the washer to his wash house. Suddenly the king said, ‘Let everyone come to the feast! Let them hurry!’ These [i.e., the sensible ones—DNB and JNT] came in their glory, but these [i.e., the foolish ones—DNB and JNT] came in their disgrace. He [i.e., the king—DNB and JNT] rejoiced over the sensible ones [הִפִּקְחִים], for they fulfilled the king’s word. And not that alone, but they honored his palace. But he was furious over the foolish ones [הַטִּפְּשִׁין] because they did not fulfill his command. And not that alone, but they disgraced his palace. The king said, ‘These who prepared themselves for the feast may enter and eat from the king’s feast. But these who did not prepare themselves for the feast may not eat from the king’s feast.’ Could it be that they went and dismissed themselves? The king said, ‘No! Rather these shall eat and drink and recline, but these will stand on their feet and be punished and see and be remorseful.’”

…Bar Kapra said, “…At all times let your clothes be white [Eccl. 9:8] from transgressions and let not oil on your head be lacking [Eccl. 9:8], in mitzvot and good deeds.” (Kohelet Rabbah 9:8 [ed. Kiperwasser, 186-190])

This version of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s parable not only has features in common with Waiting Maidens (sensible vs. foolish, unpreparedness for a celebratory feast and consequent exclusion from it), it also has features in common with the Great Banquet parable (invited individuals going about their usual business), which we believe may have belonged to the same literary complex as the Waiting Maidens parable (see the Story Placement discussion above). Both parables, we believe, were addressed to a skeptical audience that did not embrace Jesus’ summons to respond to the Kingdom of Heaven with repentance and acts of social justice, such as caring for the poor and disabled.

According to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai in the passage cited above, oil symbolizes mitzvot and good deeds. Bar Kapra reiterates this interpretation. Variations on the symbolism of olive oil occur in other sources, for instance:

בכל עת יהיו בגדיך לבנים, בדברי תורה ושמן על ראשך אל יחסר בצדקה ובמעשים טובים בציצית ובתפילין

At all times let your clothes be white [Eccl. 9:8] with words of Torah and let oil on your head not be lacking [Eccl. 9:8] in almsgiving [tzedakah, i.e., an act of social justice] and in good deeds, in tzitzit and in tefillin. (Midrash Zuta, Eccl. 9:8 [ed. Buber, 146; ed. Kiperwasser, 190])

Neither was oil considered to be symbolic of good deeds only in connection with Eccl. 9:8. The same symbolism is also found in connection with other verses:

בְּלוּלָה בַשֶׁמֶן זוֹ הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁצְּרִיכָה לִבְלוֹל בְּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים

Mixed with oil [Num. 7:19]: This is the Torah, which needs to be mixed with good deeds. (Num. Rab. 13:15/16 [ed. Merkin, 10:70])^[118] 

Just as the rabbinic sages saw an allusion to repentance in Song of Songs 5:2 (“Open to me [an opening of repentance]!”), so they detected an allusion to mitzvot and acts of social justice (tzedakot):

אני ישנה ולבי ער קול דודי דופק פתחי לי וג′ אמרה כנסת ישר′ לפני הקב″ה, רבון העולמים,…אני ישנה מן הקרבנות ולבי ער במצות וצדקות

I am asleep, but my heart is awake. The voice of my lover! He knocks! “Open to me!” etc. [Song 5:2]: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, blessed be he, “Master of the Worlds, …I am asleep with respect to the sacrifices [that have been discontinued on account of the Temple’s destruction—DNB and JNT], but my heart is awake with mitzvot and acts of social justice.” (Pesikta de-Rav Khana 5:6 [ed. Mandelbaum, 1:87]; cf. Song Rab. 5:2 §2 [ed. Etelsohn, 198])

Since olive oil was understood in rabbinic sources to represent repentance and good deeds, and since Song 5:2, which contributed to the underlying structure of the Waiting Maidens parable, was understood to allude to repentance and good deeds, and since we believe Waiting Maidens belonged to a discourse in which Jesus urged his listeners to respond to the Kingdom of Heaven with acts of social justice, we think it is probable that the maidens’ oil was intended to represent repentance and/or good deeds.^[119] Moreover, it is probably unwise to draw too fine a distinction between repentance and good deeds, since acts of mercy and benevolence were precisely what John the Baptist would have regarded as “fruit worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:8 ∥ Luke 3:8; cf. Luke 3:10-14). Undoubtedly, Jesus would have concurred. Repentance toward God ought to be expressed through acts of humanity towards one’s neighbor.

For the author of Matthew, the maidens’ oil probably had a slightly different significance. Rather than symbolizing repentance and good deeds, the author of Matthew probably intended the oil to represent doing the will of the heavenly Father (cf. Matt. 7:21), by which the author of Matthew meant observing the Torah’s commandments (as interpreted by the Matthean community). The author of Matthew and his Gentile community evidently believed that they were to observe, in some fashion, not only the universal commandments incumbent upon all humanity, but even the peculiar commandments enjoined upon Israel. In this, the Matthean community differed from the Pauline congregations, for the apostle Paul insisted that Gentiles were saved apart from the Law. The nuanced shift in the oil’s significance is indicated by the cross-pollination between Waiting Maidens and the Matthean version of Houses on Rock and Sand. Thus, in Houses on Rock and Sand the author identified the man who built his house on sand—who represents those who hear Jesus’ command to do the will of the heavenly father but do not do it—as “foolish,” while in Waiting Maidens the author of Matthew places the plea “Lord! Lord!”—uttered by the false Christians who do impressive works by the power of the Spirit but who fail to keep the Torah’s commandments—on the lips of the foolish maidens. In this way the author of Matthew has slightly altered the oil’s symbolic significance and given it a polemical edge.

L9 αἱ δὲ φρόνιμοι ἔλαβον ἔλαιον (GR). Since Matthew’s wording in L9 reverts easily to Hebrew (see below), and since it does not bear any obvious markings of Matthean redaction, we have accepted all of Matthew’s wording in L9 for GR.

וְהַפִּקְחוֹת נָטְלוּ שֶׁמֶן (HR). On reconstructing φρόνιμος (fronimos, “sensible”) with פִּקֵּחַ (piqēaḥ, “sensible”), see above, Comment to L6.

On reconstructing λαμβάνειν (lambanein, “to take”) with נָטַל (nāṭal, “take”), see above, Comment to L2.

On reconstructing ἔλαιον (elaion, “olive oil”) with שֶׁמֶן (shemen, “fat,” “olive oil”), see above, Comment to L8.

L10 ἐν τοῖς ἀγγείοις (GR). As we discussed above in Comment to L7, we suspect the redundant references to the maidens’ torches in L7 and L10 are due to the author of Matthew’s redactional emphasis on preparedness. He therefore wanted to mention every item of the maidens’ equipment. We also discussed in Comment to L8 that Matthew’s μετά (meta, “with”) phrases in L8 and L10 appear to have the same redactional purpose of emphasizing preparedness. We have therefore omitted the phrase μετὰ τῶν λαμπάδων ἑαυτῶν (meta tōn lampadōn heavtōn, “with their own torches”) from GR. The phrase ἐν τοῖς ἀγγείοις (en tois angeiois, “in the cruses”), on the other hand, poses no difficulty with regard to Hebrew retroversion and bears no obvious redactional markings. We have therefore adopted ἐν τοῖς ἀγγείοις for GR.

בַּפַּכִּים (HR). In LXX ἀγγεῖον (angeion, “vessel”) usually occurs as the translation of כְּלִי (k^eli, “vessel”), but never as the translation of פַּךְ (pach, “cruse”).^[120] The LXX translators always rendered פַּךְ as φακός (fakos),^[121] which usually means “lentil,” and while φακός can refer to lentil-shaped objects including liquid containers,^[122] the selection of φακός by the LXX translators was probably influenced by its phonetic similarity to פַּךְ. The noun פַּךְ only occurs 3xx in MT (1 Sam. 10:1; 2 Kgs. 9:1, 3), so the LXX translators had little opportunity to render this word in a variety of ways. In Mishnaic Hebrew sources פַּךְ is attested more frequently.^[123] Thus, for example, we hear of a man who broke a פַּךְ (“cruse”) containing an issar’s worth (a monetary valuation) of oil in a woman’s presence (וְשָׁבַר אֶת הַפַּךְ בְּפָנֶיהָ וּבו בְאִסַּר שׁמֶן; m. Bab. Kam. 8:6). We also hear of cruses containing oil in m. Kel. 3:2. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai even made reference to Galilean cruses (הַפַּכִּין הַגְּלִילִים; m. Kel. 2:2). Given that פַּךְ was the usual portable oil container, פַּךְ strikes us as an excellent option for HR.^[124] 

An example of בְּפַכִּין (b^efakin, “with cruses”), similar to בַּפַּכִּים (bapakim, “in the cruses”) in our reconstruction, occurs in the following statement in the Talmud:

כאן בפכין גדולים כאן בפכין קטנים

Here [in this case it has to do] with large cruses [בְּפַכִּין גְּדוֹלִים], [while] here [it has to do] with small cruses [בְּפַכִּין קְטַנִים]. (b. Bab. Kam. 16a)

L11 χρονίζοντος δὲ τοῦ νυμφίου (Matt. 25:5). There are strong reasons for suspecting that Matthew’s statement that the groom tarried is redactional. First, this information is imparted to readers in a genitive absolute phrase, which is stylistically good Greek, but highly un-Hebraic. It is unlikely, therefore, that the genitive absolute construction occurred in Anth. Moreover, genitives absolute are typical of Matthean redaction.^[125] Second, although the delay of the groom is a major plot point in the Matthean version of the parable, this detail cannot be derived either from Exod. 11:4-6 or from Song 5:2, the two verses we believe gave the parable its underlying structure. The absence of a delay motif in Exod. 11:4-6 and Song 5:2 marks the groom’s delay in Waiting Maidens as a foreign element, introduced from some other source. Third, contrary to some scholars,^[126] the groom’s delay is not necessary for the logic of the parable.^[127] If a delay had not been mentioned, readers would naturally assume that the maidens fell asleep because of the lateness of the hour appointed for the groom’s arrival.^[128] Fourth, the author of Matthew had a strong motive for adding the delay motif to the parable, since it helps tie the Waiting Maidens parable to its immediate context—where, in the preceding pericope, the faithless servant says to himself, χρονίζει μου ὁ κύριος (chronizei mou ho kūrios, “My Lord is delayed”; Matt. 24:48), using the same verb, χρονίζειν (chronizein, “to delay,” “to take time”), that is used here in L11^[129] —and to the larger context of the eschatological discourse, which the author of Matthew adapted for readers who were awaiting the parousia (“What is the sign of your parousia and of the consummation of the age?”; Matt. 24:3). Indeed, the eschatological timetable is one of the author of Matthew’s more pronounced redactional concerns.^[130] 

Needless to say, if the groom’s delay was a Matthean addition to Waiting Maidens, then Jeremias’ contention that “No emphasis is originally placed on the delay of the bridegroom. This is simply designed to explain why the foolish virgins are caught in the predicament of not having enough oil in their lamps” cannot be correct.^[131] The author of Matthew’s purpose for adding the delay motif was precisely to emphasize it.

Since we believe Matthew’s phrase χρονίζοντος δὲ τοῦ νυμφίου (chonizontos de tou nūmfiou, “as the groom tarried”) is a redactional insertion, we have omitted these words from GR.^[132] 

— (HR). Having concluded that the author of Matthew added the delay motif to the Waiting Maidens parable, we have no equivalent to Matthew’s wording in L11 in HR.^[133] 

While scholars have proffered various explanations, such as extended haggling over the brideprice,^[134] it is pointless to ask what caused the groom’s delay. The wedding described in the parable never actually took place, it is an imaginary story, so there is no reality behind the parable that can explain why things happened the way they did. All of the whys lie not in the reality (or pseudo-reality) of the parable but in the intentions of the storyteller. In other words, the groom was delayed because the storyteller—in this case, the author of Matthew—wanted him to be delayed.

L12 καὶ ἐνύσταξαν πᾶσαι καὶ ἐκάθευδον (GR). Apart from the addition of the conjunction καί (kai, “and”) to the beginning of the sentence, we have accepted Matthew’s wording in L12 for GR without alteration.

Scholars who interpret Matthew’s parable as an allegory often suppose that the falling asleep of the maidens represents death,^[135] although this interpretation is not without difficulty,^[136] since it clashes with the exhortation to keep awake, which the author of Matthew added at the end of the parable (Matt. 25:13). The readers of Matthew’s Gospel could hardly control whether they lived or died before the parousia.

It has also been suggested that the author of Matthew picked up the falling asleep motif from Faithful or Faithless Slave (cf. Luke 12:37) and/or Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man (Mark 13:35-37).^[137] However, since the sleeping motif is easily explained by the evident allusion to Song 5:2, it is more likely that the maidens’ sleep was an original part of the parable and part of what attracted Waiting Maidens to its current location within the Matthean version of the eschatological discourse.

וְנִתְנַמְנְמוּ כּוּלָן וְיָשְׁנוּ (HR). In LXX νυστάζειν (nūstazein, “to be drowsy”) does not occur often, but when it does occur it appears more often as the translation of the נ-ו-מ root than of any other alternative.^[138] We also find that the LXX translators usually rendered the נ-ו-מ root as νυστάζειν.^[139] In Mishnaic Hebrew the נ-ו-מ root was typically used in the nitpa‘el stem.^[140] Examples of נִתְנַמְנֵם (nitnamnēm, “be drowsy”) include the following:

קְרָאָהּ סֵרוּגִים נִתְנַמְנָם ויָצָא

If he read it [i.e., the scroll] bit by bit or while drowsy [נִתְנַמְנָם], he has fulfilled his obligation. (m. Meg. 2:2)

יָשְׁנוּ מִקְצָתָם יֹאכֵלוּ וְכוּלָּם ^לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ ר′ יוֹסֵה או′ אִם נִתְנַמְנְמוּ יֹאכֵלוּ וְאִם נִרְדְּמוּ לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ

If some of them slept, they may eat [the Passover lamb], but if all of them [slept], they may not eat. Rabbi Yose says, “If they were drowsy [נִתְנַמְנְמוּ], they may eat, but if they slept soundly, they may not eat.” (m. Pes. 10:7[8])

Given the facts cited above, we regard נִתְנַמְנֵם as an excellent option for GR.^[141] 

On reconstructing πᾶς (pas, “all,” “every”) with כָּל (kol, “all,” “every”), see Demands of Discipleship, Comment to L32.

In LXX καθεύδειν (kathevdein, “to sleep”) usually occurs as the translation of שָׁכַב (shāchav, “lie down,” “sleep”),^[142] but on a few occasions (3 Kgdms. 18:27; Song 5:2; Dan. 12:2) καθεύδειν occurs as the translation of יָשֵׁן (yāshēn, “sleep”). We believe יָשֵׁן is the best option for HR^[141] because of the likelihood that the Waiting Maidens parable alludes to Song 5:2, which reads:

אֲנִי יְשֵׁנָה וְלִבִּי עֵר קוֹל דּוֹדִי דוֹפֵק פִּתְחִי־לִי אֲחֹתִי רַעְיָתִי יוֹנָתִי תַמָּתִי שֶׁרֹּאשִׁי נִמְלָא טָל קְוֻּצּוֹתַי רְסִיסֵי לָיְלָה

I am asleep [יְשֵׁנָה], but my heart is awake. The voice of my beloved! He knocks, “Open to me, my sister, my beloved, my dove, my flawless one, for my head is full of dew, my locks with drops of the night!” (Song 5:2)

L13 μέσης δὲ νυκτὸς κραυγὴ ἐγένετο (GR). We have adopted Matthew’s wording for GR as it appears in Codex Vaticanus, the base text for our reconstructions. However, some textual witnesses read γέγονεν (gegonen, “he/she/it had been”) instead of ἐγένετο (egeneto, “he/she/it was”). Whether or not ἐγένετο is the original reading in Matt. 25:6, we suspect that Anth.’s version of the parable had the more Hebraic form ἐγένετο. Either the author of Matthew, who typically avoided ἐγένετο except in the stereotyped conclusions to his five major discourses,^[143] changed Anth.’s ἐγένετο to γέγονεν, or this change was made by a later copyist.

כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה וְהָיְתָה צְעָקָה (HR). Some scholars regard the reference to midnight as a redactional accretion,^[144] and most seem to regard the timing of the groom’s arrival at midnight as a trivial and meaningless detail.^[145] We, on the other hand, regard the groom’s arrival at midnight as crucial for a correct understanding of the parable. The groom’s arrival at midnight alludes to the Lord’s coming to Egypt at midnight to redeem the children of Israel from slavery (Exod. 11:4).^[146] The correspondence between the groom in the parable and the redeemer of Israel in the real world would have been easily grasped by listeners because of the tradition of interpreting Song of Songs as an allegory of God’s redeeming love for his covenant people and because of the allusions to Song 5:2 in the parable. Once it was understood that the groom’s arrival at midnight paralleled the coming of the redeemer at midnight in the Passover narrative, listeners would conclude that the parable illustrated how things will unfold in the final redemption, for it was a commonplace in ancient Judaism that the final redemption will unfold along the analogy of Israel’s redemption from Egypt. Thus, the parable illustrated how the foolish and the sensible will fare in the final redemption: Just as the maidens’ relationship to the groom was determined by their possession of oil, so the audience’s participation in the final redemption would be determined by their possession of the real-world equivalent of oil (i.e., repentance and good deeds). And just as the oil had to be acquired before the groom’s arrival to be of any use to the maidens, so all sensible persons will practice repentance and perform good deeds in accordance with Jesus’ summons, or else be excluded from the final redemption.

The disembodied shout announcing the arrival of the groom is another puzzling detail in the parable, until we realize that it alludes to the shout that was heard at midnight in Egypt:

כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה אֲנִי יוֹצֵא בְּתוֹךְ מִצְרָיִם…וְהָיְתָה צְעָקָה גְדֹלָה בְּכָל־אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

At about midnight I am going out in the midst of Egypt…and there will be a great shout in all the land of Egypt…. (Exod. 11:4, 6)

Περὶ μέσας νύκτας ἐγὼ εἰσπορεύομαι εἰς μέσον Αἰγύπτου…καὶ ἔσται κραυγὴ μεγάλη κατὰ πᾶσαν γῆν Αἰγύπτου

Around midnight I am going through the midst of Egypt…and there will be a great shout through all the land of Egypt…. (Exod. 11:4, 6)

The midnight hour and the shout are especially important for understanding Waiting Maidens because these are the two points where Exod. 11:4-6 and Song 5:2 converge. The midnight hour in Exod. 11:4 roughly corresponds to the lover’s statement that his locks are drenched with the drops of the night in Song 5:2.^[147] Whereas the shout in Exod. 11:6 roughly corresponds to the words קוֹל דּוֹדִי דוֹפֵק (qōl dōdi dōfēq) in Song 5:2, which can variously be understood as “The voice of my lover! He knocks!” or as “The sound of my lover knocking!”^[148] it was this phrase that is explicitly mentioned as the connecting link between Exod. 11:4-6 and Song 5:2 in the following midrash on Song of Songs:

קול דודי דופק זה משה, ויאמר משה כה אמר י″י כחצות הלילה אני וג′‏

The voice of my lover! He knocks! [Song 5:2]. This is Moses [as it is said], And Moses said, “Thus says the Lord, about the middle of the night I am” etc. [Exod. 11:4]. (Pesikta de-Rav Khana 5:6 [ed. Mandelbaum, 1:87]; cf. Song Rab. 5:2 §2 [ed. Etelsohn, 198])

Since we regard the midnight hour and the shout as integral to the Waiting Maidens parable and key to its interpretation, we have included these details in our reconstructions.

We have reconstructed μέσης νυκτός (mesēs nūktos, “middle of night,” “midnight”) as כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה (kaḥ^atzot halaylāh, “about midnight”) because this is the phrase that occurs in Exod. 11:4, one of the verses we believe informed the composition of the Waiting Maidens parable. In MT the exact phrase כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה occurs only once (Exod. 11:4),^[149] where the LXX translators rendered it as περὶ μέσας νύκτας (peri mesas nūktas, “around midnight”). In rabbinic sources midnight is usually referred to simply as חֲצוֹת (ḥ^atzōt), a term that can also refer to midday,^[150] so if Jesus had used the phrase כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה (“about midnight”), the allusion to Exod. 11:4 would have been unmistakable.

On reconstructing γίνεσθαι (ginesthai, “to be”) with הָיָה (hāyāh, “be”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L1.

In LXX the noun κραυγή (kravgē, “shout,” “outcry”) usually occurs as the translation of צְעָקָה (tz^e‘āqāh, “shout,” “outcry”) or זְעָקָה (z^e‘āqāh, “shout,” “outcry”).^[151] We also find that the LXX translators typically rendered צְעָקָה as κραυγή.^[152] In any case, the likelihood that Waiting Maidens here alludes to Exod. 11:6 recommends the adoption of צְעָקָה for HR.

To make the allusion to Exod. 11:6 even more pronounced, we might have attached the adjective גְּדֹלָה (g^edolāh, “big”) to צְעָקָה, but since the Greek text of Matt. 25:6 lacks μεγάλη (megalē, “big”), and since the allusion to Exod. 11:6 is sufficiently clear without the addition of גְּדֹלָה, we have excluded this adjective from HR.

L14 ἰδοὺ ὁ νυμφίος (GR). We have adopted Matthew’s Hebraic wording in L14 unchanged for GR.

Whereas the author of Matthew wanted his readers to interpret the groom as analogous to the Son of Man, Jesus probably intended the groom to be analogous to the Lord, or, perhaps, more generally to the final redemption.

הֲרֵי הֶחָתָן (HR). On reconstructing ἰδού (idou, “Behold!”) with הֲרֵי (h^arē, “Behold!”), see Preparations for Eating Passover Lamb, Comment to L22.

On reconstructing νυμφίος (nūmfios, “groom”) with חָתָן (ḥātān, “groom”), see above, Comment to L4.

L15 ἐξέρχεσθε εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτοῦ (GR). We have accepted Matthew’s wording for GR in L15 with the addition of the possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ (avtou, “of him”), which, though absent in our base text Codex Vaticanus, is included in other textual witnesses. The inclusion of αὐτοῦ is certainly more Hebraic, although there are instances in LXX of the absolute use of εἰς συνάντησιν (eis sūnantēsin, “into a meeting”), which is synonymous with εἰς ἀπάντησιν (eis apantēsin, “into a meeting”), where the underlying Hebrew text has לִקְרַאת + pronominal suffix (e.g., Num. 22:34),^[153] so it is conceivable that αὐτοῦ was not present in Anth.

The variation between ὑπάντησις (hūpantēsis, “meeting”) in L4 and the synonymous ἀπάντησις (apantēsis, “meeting”) is textually uncertain,^[154] but, if original, mildly surprising, although ultimately of no particular importance to the meaning of the parable.^[127] 

צְאוּ לִקְרָאתוֹ (HR). On reconstructing ἐξέρχεσθαι (exerchesthai, “to go out”) with יָצָא (yātzā’, “go out”), see above, Comment to L4.^[155] 

In L4 we reconstructed ὑπάντησις (hūpantēsis, “meeting”) with לִקְרַאת (liqra’t, “to meet”). As we noted, the noun ἀπάντησις (apantēsis, “meeting”) is a synonym of ὑπάντησις, and should therefore be reconstructed in the same manner.^[156] 

L16 καὶ ἠγέρθησαν πᾶσαι αἱ παρθένοι ἐκεῖναι (GR). We have accepted most of Matthew’s wording in L16 for GR, changing only τότε (tote, “then”), a preferred Matthean term usually indicative of redaction, to καί (kai, “and”), which is more Hebraic.

וְנִתְעוֹרְרוּ כָּל אוֹתָן הַבְּתוּלוֹת (HR). In LXX ἐγείρειν (egeirein, “to raise,” “to get up”) usually occurs as the translation of קָם (qām, “to rise”) or הֵקִים (hēqim, “to raise up”),^[157] and while קָם is a possible option for HR, the parable’s allusion to Song 5:2, which includes the phrase וְלִבִּי עֵר (v^elibi ‘ēr, “but my heart is awake”), suggests that a verb from the ע-ו-ר root would be preferable. In Mishnaic Hebrew the verb נִתְעוֹרֵר (nit‘ōrēr), meaning “wake up,” is not uncommon, as we see in examples such as the following:

וּמִשֶׁנָּפְלוּ אֲרָמִים כִּדְבַר אֱלִישָׁע לֹא עָמְדוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְעוֹרְרוּ בִימֵי אָחָז וְנָפְלוּ

And from the time that the Arameans fell according to the word of Elisha they did not rise, except that they roused themselves [שֶׁנִּתְעוֹרְרוּ] in the days of Ahaz and fell. (Seder Olam §20 [ed. Guggenheimer, 172])

עורי צפון ובואי תימן עורי צפון זה העולה שנשחטת בצפון מהו עורי דבר שהיה ישן ונתעורר ובואי תימן אלו שלמים שהן נשחטין בדרום

Arise, O north [wind]! And come, O south [wind]! [Song 4:16]. Arise, O north, this is the whole burnt offering, which was slaughtered to the north. What is Arise? Something that was asleep and has wakened [וְנִתְעוֹרֵר]. And come, O south, these are the peace offerings, which were slaughtered to the south. (y. Meg. 1:11 [15a]; cf. Gen. Rab. 22:5)

The Biblical Hebrew form הִתְעוֹרֵר only occurs in four verses of the Hebrew Scriptures (Isa. 51:17 [2xx]; 64:6; Job 17:8; 31:29). The LXX translators rendered the two instances of הִתְעוֹרֵר in Isa. 51:17 as ἐξεγείρειν (exegeirein, “to raise up,” “to wake up”), a compound of ἐγείρειν, the verb that occurs here in L16. The LXX translators frequently rendered ע-ו-ר in other stems as ἐξεγείρειν as well.^[158] Thus נִתְעוֹרֵר is a solid choice for HR.^[159] 

On reconstructing πᾶς (pas, “all,” “every”) with כָּל (kol, “all,” “every”), see above, Comment to L12.

On reconstructing ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos, “that”) with אֵת + third-person pronominal suffix, see Calamities in Yerushalayim, Comment to L14.

Examples of אֵת + כָּל + third-person pronominal suffix + definite noun, such as כָּל אוֹתָן הַבְּתוּלוֹת (kol ’ōtān hab^etūlōt, “all those maidens”) in our reconstruction, include:

לא ירד משם כל אותו היום

He did not go down from there all that day [כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם]. (t. Sanh. 9:3 [ed. Zuckermandel, 429])

ויש אומרים כיון שאכלה חוה מפירותיו של אילן ראת עצמה כאילו לא ניזוקה ואמרה כל אותן הדברים שצוה אותי רבי אדם שקר הם

There are some who say that as soon as Eve ate from the fruit of the tree she saw herself as though she were unharmed and she said, “All those things [כָּל אוֹתָן הַדְּבָרִים] that my master, Adam, commanded me: they are a lie!” (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B, §1 [ed. Schechter, 6])

On reconstructing παρθένος (parthenos, “maiden”) with בְּתוּלָה (b^etūlāh, “maiden”), see above, Comment to L2.

L17 καὶ ἐκόσμησαν τὰς λαμπάδας (GR). We have accepted all of Matthew’s wording in L17 for GR except for the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτῶν (heavtōn, “their own”), which, as we discussed above in Comment to L3, can be a marker of Greek redaction, and which, in Waiting Maidens, appears to reflect the author of Matthew’s emphasis on personal possession, which is related to the theme of preparedness, which we believe the author of Matthew added to the parable.

וְהֵטִיבוּ אֶת הַלַּפִּידִים (HR). In LXX κοσμεῖν (kosmein, “to arrange,” “to adorn”) is not very frequent, but nevertheless occurs as the translation of a variety of verbs, none of which have the meaning “trim a light.” In Mishnaic Hebrew, on the other hand, the verb הֵטִיב (hēṭiv), which usually means “prepare” or “adorn,” was also used for “trim a light,”^[160] which makes κοσμεῖν and הֵטִיב good semantic equivalents.^[159] 

Examples of הֵטִיב in the sense of “trim a light” include:

כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים הוּא זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם וּמַקְטִיר אֶת הַקְּטוֹרֶת וּמֵטִיב אֶת הַנֵּירוֹת

All seven days he tosses the blood and offers the incense and trims [וּמֵטִיב] the lamps. (m. Yom. 1:2)

נִכְנַס לְהַקְטִיר וּלְהֵטִיב אֶת הַנֵּירוֹת

He entered to offer incense and to trim [וּלְהֵטִיב] the lamps. (m. Yom. 3:4; cf. m. Yom. 7:4)

הַכֹהֵן עוֹמֵד וּמֵטִיב אֶת הַנֵּירוֹת הִנִּיחַ אֶת הַכּוּז עַל מַעֲלָה שְׁנִייָּה וְיָצָא

The priest stands and trims [וּמֵטִיב] the lamps. He left the oil scoop on the second step and went out. (m. Tam. 3:9)

All of the examples of הֵטִיב we have cited pertain to indoor lamps in the Temple. But since vessel torches were equipped with wicks like lamps, there is no reason to assume that הֵטִיב or κοσμεῖν could not be used in reference to torches.

On reconstructing λαμπάς (lampas, “torch”) with לַפִּיד (lapid, “torch”), see above, Comment to L3.

L18 καὶ εἶπαν αἱ μωραὶ ταῖς φρονίμοις (GR). In L18 Matthew’s wording, the order of which is un-Hebraic, appears to have been brushed up by a Greek editor, probably the author of Matthew himself. For GR we have adopted more Hebraic phrasing characteristic of the style of Anth.

וְאָמְרוּ הַטִּפְּשׁוֹת לַפִּקְחוֹת (HR). On reconstructing εἰπεῖν (eipein, “to say”) with אָמַר (’āmar, “say”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L12.

On reconstructing μωρός (mōros, “stupid,” “foolish”) with טִפֵּשׁ (ṭipēsh, “foolish,” “stupid”), see above, Comment to L5.

On reconstructing φρόνιμος (fronimos, “sensible”) with פִּקֵּחַ (piqēaḥ, “sensible”), see above, Comment to L6.

L19 δότε ἡμῖν ἐκ τοῦ ἐλαίου ὑμῶν (GR). Since Matthew’s wording in L19 reverts easily to Hebrew and bears no obvious marks of Matthean redaction, we have adopted it for GR without modification.

תְּנוּ לָנוּ מִשַּׁמְנְכֶן (HR). On reconstructing διδόναι (didonai, “to give”) with נָתַן (nātan, “give”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L18.

On reconstructing ἔλαιον (elaion, “olive oil”) with שֶׁמֶן (shemen, “fat,” “oil”), see above, Comment to L8. Since the noun שֶׁמֶן takes a pronominal suffix in the Mishnah (m. Avod. Zar. 2:5; m. Men. 1:3; 10:4; m. Mid. 2:5), we have not hesitated to attach a pronominal suffix to שֶׁמֶן in our reconstruction.

L20 ὅτι αἱ λαμπάδες ἡμῶν σβέννυνται (Matt. 25:8). The reason the maidens give for their request for oil—“because our torches are going out”—is a bit perplexing. A more obvious reason for the request would have been, “because we neglected to bring cruses with oil.” Perplexing, too, is why the torches were going out. Had the torches been burning while the maidens were asleep? This is hard to imagine because, in order to prevent their spilling, vessel torches need to be held upright—no easy task for a sleeping maiden! But even if the sleeping maidens had managed this improbable feat, would not all the torches be going out, and not just those of the foolish maidens? Or are we to imagine that the foolish maidens were attempting to light dry wicks? To do so would certainly have been foolish, but in that case the maidens would probably have explained, “because we cannot light our torches,” not “because our torches are going out.”^[161] All these difficulties with the reason the foolish maidens give for their request suggest that the phrase ὅτι αἱ λαμπάδες ἡμῶν σβέννυνται (hoti hai lampades hēmōn sbennūntai, “because the torches of us are going out”) is not original to the parable. Perhaps this phrase is a Matthean addition.

The supposition that Matthew’s wording in L20 is redactional gains credibility when we recall the opening words of the eschatological prophecy that concludes the Didache, a prophecy that influenced other parts of Matthew’s Gospel, including Matthew’s version of the eschatological discourse:

Γρηγορεῖτε ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν· οἱ λύχνοι ὑμῶν μὴ σβεσθήτωσαν

Stay awake for the sake of your lives: your lamps not going out [σβεσθήτωσαν]…. (Did. 16:1)

If the author of Matthew had had this prophecy in mind when he incorporated the Waiting Maidens parable into his version of the eschatological discourse, he could have added “because our torches are going out” in order to allude to this prophetic warning. By doing so the author of Matthew would have been demonstrating to his readers, who were likely acquainted with the Didache’s prophecy, just how foolish these maidens were. The foolish maidens, failing to heed the prophetic warning, did allow their torches to go out, and would accordingly face the consequences.

Since we consider Matthew’s wording in L20 to be redactional, it has been excluded from GR and no equivalent has been included in HR.

L21 ἀπεκρίθησαν δὲ αἱ φρόνιμοι λέγουσαι (GR). Matthew’s wording in L21 reverts easily to Hebrew and does not serve the author of Matthew’s redactional agenda. We have therefore accepted Matthew’s wording in L21 for GR.

וְעָנוּ הַפִּקְחוֹת לוֹמַר (HR). On reconstructing ἀποκρίνειν (apokrinein, “to answer”) with עָנָה (‘ānāh, “answer”), see Call of Levi, Comment to L56.

On reconstructing φρόνιμος (fronimos, “sensible”) with פִּקֵּחַ (piqēaḥ, “sensible”), see above, Comment to L6.

On reconstructing λέγειν (legein, “to say”) with אָמַר (’āmar, “say”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L15. We have adopted the Mishnaic form of the infinitive, לוֹמַר (lōmar, “to say”), rather than the Biblical form לֵאמֹר (lē’mor, “to say”) because we prefer to reconstruct direct speech, including parables, in Mishnaic-style Hebrew.

L22 μήποτε οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν (GR). Since Matthew’s wording in L22 does not betray clear traces of redaction, and since the parable requires a refusal of some kind, we have adopted Matthew’s wording for GR.

שֶׁמָּא לֹא יִהְיֶה מַסְפִּיק לָנוּ וְלָכֶן (HR). On reconstructing μήποτε (mēpote, “lest”) with שֶׁמָּא (shemā’, “lest,” “perhaps”), see Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L5-6. According to Segal,^[162] שֶׁמָּא usually follows a verb of caution or fear, but he noted that sometimes these are merely implied, as we presume must have been the case in the sensible maidens’ reply. Implied here would be something like “We are afraid lest there not be enough for us and for you.”

Examples of שֶׁמָּא לֹא (shemā’ lo’, “lest not”) include the following:

וְאוֹמְרִים אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל קְרָא אַתָּה בְּפִיךָ שֶׁמֵּא שָׁכַחְתָּה אוֹ שֶׁמֵּא לֹא לָמַדְתָּה

…and they say, “My man, high priest, read it yourself out loud, lest you have forgotten it, or lest you never [שֶׁמֵּא לֹא] learned it.” (m. Yom. 1:3)

בת לאביה מטמונת שוא מפחדה לא יישן בלילה בקטנותה שמא תתפתה בנערותה שמא תזנה בגרה שמא לא תינשא נישאת שמא לא יהיו לה בנים הזקינה שמא תעשה כשפים

A daughter is a vain treasure to her father. From fear of her he does not sleep at night. While she is a minor lest she be seduced, in her youth lest she be promiscuous, in her adulthood lest she not marry, when married lest there not be [שֶׁמָּא לֹא יִהְיוּ] to her children, in her old age lest she practice witchcraft. (b. Sanh. 100b)^[163] 

In LXX the verb ἀρκεῖν (arkein, “to be content,” “to be enough”) is rare and does not occur consistently as the translation of any one Hebrew verb.^[164] It occurs twice as the translation of the מ-צ-א root (Num. 11:22 [מָצָא]; Josh. 17:16 [נִמְצָא]), which in Biblical Hebrew could, on rare occasions, mean “be enough.”^[165] In Mishnaic Hebrew מ-צ-א in its various stems no longer conveyed this meaning, as we see in Rabbi Akiva’s explanation of Num. 11:22:

Num. 11:22	Akiva’s Explanation (t. Sot. 6:7)
הֲצֹאן וּבָקָר יִשָּׁחֵט לָהֶם וּמָצָא לָהֶם אִם אֶת־כָּל־דְּגֵי הַיָּם יֵאָסֵף לָהֶם וּמָצָא לָהֶם	דרש רבי עקיבא הצאן ובקר ישחט להם ומצ′ להם וכי מספיק להם אם את כל דגי הי′ וגו′ וכי הו′ מספיק להם
If sheep and cattle were slaughtered for them, would it be enough [מָצָא] for them? If all the fish of the sea were gathered for them, would it be enough [מָצָא] for them?	Rabbi Akiva interpreted, If sheep and cattle were slaughtered for them, would it be found [מָצָא]—that is, would it be enough [מַסְפִּיק] for them?—If all the fish of the sea, etc., that is, would it be enough [מַסְפִּיק] for them?

Rabbi Akiva’s explanation suggests that מַסְפִּיק (maspiq, “enough”) is a viable option for reconstructing ἀρκεῖν in the Waiting Maidens parable.

Additional examples of לְ- + מַסְפִּיק + pronominal suffix include:

רבי יצחק אומר אלו נפרט להם כל שם עבודה זרה לא היה מספיק להם כל העורות שבעולם

Rabbi Yitzhak says, “If the name of every idol was specified, all the parchments in the world would not be enough for them [לֹא הָיָה מַסְפִּיק לָהֶם].” (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, BaḤodesh §6 [ed. Lauterbach, 2:320])

חֲרָרָה שֶׁהִיא יוֹצֵאת עִמָּהֶן מִמִּצְרָיִם מַסְפִּיק לָהֶן שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם

The cake that goes out with them from Egypt: there will be enough for them [מַסְפִּיק לָהֶן] [out of it] for thirty days. (Exod. Rab. 3:4 [ed. Merkin, 4:70])

Some scholars have objected that the sensible maidens ought to have shared with the foolish maidens, just as John the Baptist taught those with two tunics to share with those who had none and those with food to eat should share with those who had nothing (Luke 3:11).^[166] But the purpose of the parable was not to teach ethics^[167] but to illustrate the need for Jesus’ audience to respond to the divine favor lavished on them by practicing repentance and performing acts of benevolence and mercy toward those less fortunate than themselves. To do so would be sensible, while to fail to do so would be foolish. In any case, the sensible maidens’ explanation shows that their situation is not like the scenarios described by John the Baptist. The sensible maidens did not have a surplus of oil, and neither were the foolish maidens in want of life-sustaining necessities.^[168] 

L23 πορεύεσθε μᾶλλον πρὸς τοὺς πωλοῦντας (GR). Although Matthew’s word order in L23 disagrees slightly with Hebrew word order, some accommodation to Greek syntax is to be expected even in Anth. Since there are no obvious signs of redaction in L23, we have adopted Matthew’s wording for GR.

אֲבָל לְכוּ לַמּוֹכְרִים (HR). On reconstructing μᾶλλον (mallon, “rather”) with אֲבָל (’^avāl, “but”), see Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road, Comment to L54.

On reconstructing πορεύεσθαι (porevesthai, “to go”) with הָלַךְ (hālach, “walk”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L2.

On reconstructing πωλεῖν (pōlein, “to sell”) with מָכַר (māchar, “sell”), see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L46.

Scholars have questioned whether shops would be open at midnight,^[169] and a few have attempted to prove that they would.^[170] But such inquiries probably demand too much realism from the parable.^[171] The parable does not describe an actual event, and we should not expect this or any parable to resemble real life in every particular.

L24 καὶ ἀγοράσατε (GR). For GR we have accepted Matthew’s imperatival phrase καὶ ἀγοράσατε (kai agorasate, “and buy”), but we have once again excluded the reflexive pronoun ἑαυταῖς (heavtais, “for yourselves”), which, as we discussed above in Comment to L3, appears to reflect the author of Matthew’s redactional agenda.

וּקְחוּ (HR). On reconstructing ἀγοράζειν (agorazein, “to buy”) with לָקַח (lāqaḥ, BH: “take”; MH: “buy”), see Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl, Comment to L8.

L25 καὶ ἀπῆλθον (GR). Matthew’s genitive absolute phrase ἀπερχομένων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀγοράσαι (aperchomenōn de avtōn agorasai, “But as they went away to buy…”) resists retroversion to Hebrew, is stylistically good Greek, and also typical of Matthean redaction.^[172] We think it is likely, therefore, that the author of Matthew added this phrase as a stylistic improvement to Anth.’s wording, which may have had something as simple as καὶ ἀπῆλθον (kai apēlthon, “and they went away”), the phrase we have adopted for GR.

וְהָלְכוּ (HR). On reconstructing ἀπέρχεσθαι (aperchesthai, “to go away”) with הָלַךְ (hālach, “walk,” “go”), see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, Comment to L7.^[173] 

L26 καὶ ἦλθεν ὁ νυμφίος (GR). Since Matthew’s wording in L26 reverts easily to Hebrew and is necessary for the unfolding of the parable, we have adopted it for GR with the addition of καί (kai, “and”).

וּבָא הֶחָתָן (HR). On reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”) with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see Demands of Discipleship, Comment to L8.

On reconstructing νυμφίος (nūmfios, “groom”) with חָתָן (ḥātān, “groom”), see above, Comment to L4.

L27 καὶ αἱ ἕτοιμοι (Matt. 25:10). In L27 and L32 we encounter a strange departure from the way the parable has so far referred to the two groups of five maidens. No longer are they referred to as “the sensible” and “the foolish” but as “the prepared ones” (L27) and “the remaining maidens” (L32). By referring in L27 to the sensible maidens as αἱ ἕτοιμοι (hai hetoimoi, “the prepared ones”) the author of Matthew drove home to his readers the lesson he wanted them to take away from the parable: to be prepared and awake for the Son of Man’s coming.^[174] As we have discussed throughout this commentary, we do not believe that the need for preparedness for a future event was the message Jesus intended to convey. It was his intention to urge his audience to be sensible in the present by responding appropriately to the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven (viz., through repentance and good deeds). Moreover, the ham-handed approach adopted here by referring to the sensible maidens as “the prepared ones” is more characteristic of Matthean redaction than the subtle and artful teaching of Jesus. Undoubtedly, the author of Matthew picked up the adjective ἕτοιμος (hetoimos, “prepared,” “ready”) from Unexpected Thief, L8 (Matt. 24:44 ∥ Luke 12:40),^[168] where we find the exhortation καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι (kai hūmeis ginesthe hetoimoi, “And you, be prepared!”), although the phrase ἀλλὰ γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι (alla ginesthe hetoimoi, “…but be prepared!”) in Did. 16:1 may also have been in the back of the author of Matthew’s mind.

καὶ αἱ παρθένοι αἱ φρόνιμοι (GR). We suspect that where Matthew now reads, “and the prepared ones” Anth. read, “and the sensible maidens.” Anth. might have simply read, αἱ φρόνιμοι (“the sensible ones”; cf. L9, L18, L21), but since we presume αἱ λοιπαὶ παρθένοι (hai loipai parthenoi, “the remaining maidens”) in L32 is Matthew’s replacement for αἱ παρθένοι αἱ μωραί (hai parthenoi hai mōrai, “the foolish maidens”) (see below, Comment to L31-32), our longer reconstruction makes for a more balanced conclusion to the parable.

וְהַבְּתוּלוֹת הַפִּקְחוֹת (HR). On reconstructing παρθένος (parthenos, “maiden”) with בְּתוּלָה (b^etūlāh, “maiden”), see above, Comment to L2.

On reconstructing φρόνιμος (fronimos, “sensible”) with פִּקֵּחַ (piqēaḥ, “sensible”), see above, Comment to L6.

L28 εἰσῆλθον μετ’ αὐτοῦ (GR). Although we omitted the μετά phrases in L8 and L10, we have retained μετ’ αὐτοῦ (met avtou, “with him”) in L28. We deemed the μετά phrases in L8 and L10 to be the product of the author of Matthew’s emphasis on personal possession, which he intended to highlight his message of preparedness, but the μετά phrase in L28 does not serve that function.

נִכְנְסוּ עִמּוֹ (HR). On reconstructing εἰσέρχεσθαι (eiserchesthai, “to enter”) with נִכְנַס (nichnas, “enter”), see Shimon’s Mother-in-law, Comment to L5.

On reconstructing μετά (meta, “with”) with עִם (‘im, “with”), see Call of Levi, Comment to L50.

L29 [εἰς τοὺς γάμους] (GR). In our reconstruction we have placed the words εἰς τοὺς γάμους (eis tous gamous, “into the wedding”) within brackets because although a reference to a wedding is perfectly natural in this context, it is not strictly necessary (the parable never mentions the bride either!). In addition, the noun γάμος (gamos, “wedding”) occurs with disproportionate frequency in the Gospel of Matthew compared to the Gospels of Mark and Luke,^[175] which makes its appearance here suspect. However, since we cannot exclude the possibility that the parable did refer to the wedding, placing εἰς τοὺς γάμους within brackets seems best.

[לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה] (HR). Since GR in L29 is placed in brackets, HR is necessarily placed within brackets too. Delitzsch rendered γάμος in Matt. 25:10 as חֲתוּנָּה (ḥ^atūnāh, “wedding”), but this Biblical Hebrew term seems to have become obsolete in Mishnaic Hebrew. Although various terms referring to the wedding event might be considered options for HR, a term referring to the wedding’s location would be more to the point. For this reason we have selected בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה (bēt mishteh, lit., “house of a banquet”) for HR. The term בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה was often used to refer to the place where wedding festivities were held, and מִשְׁתֶּה (mishteh, “banquet”) was commonly used in reference to the wedding feast.^[176] An example of בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה occurs in the first halakhah of the Mishnah:

מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ בָנָיו מִבֵּית הַמִשְׁתֶּה אָמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא קָרִינוּ אֶת שְׁמַע אָמַר לָהֶם אִם לֹא עָלָה עַמוּד הַשַּׁחַר מוּתָּרִין אַתֵּם לִיקְרוֹת

It happened that his [i.e., Rabban Gamliel’s] sons came [home late] from a wedding banquet [מִבֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה]. They said to him, “We have not recited the Shema!” He said to them, “If the first rays of dawn have not come up, you are permitted to recite it.” (m. Ber. 1:1)

It is possible that the term בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה with the sense of “place of the wedding festivities” occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. Qohelet advised his readers:

טוֹב לָלֶכֶת אֶל בֵּית אֵבֶל מִלֶּכֶת אֶל בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה

It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting [בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה]. (Eccl. 7:2)

At any rate, that is how the contrast between “house of mourning” and “house of feasting” was understood in the following mishnah:

‏⟨‏מַדְלִיקִין⟩ ‏שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵיפָה בְּבָתֵּי כְנֵסָיוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת וּבְמָבוֹאוֹת אֲפֵלִים וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַחוֹלִין בִּרְשׁוּת כֹּהֵן בַּת יִשְׂרָא′ שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לַכֹּהֵן וְהִיא לִימּוֹדֶת לָבוֹא אֵצֶל אָבִיהָ אביה מַדְלִיק בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ מַדְלִיקִין בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אֲבַל לֹא בְּבֵית הָאֶבֶל

They may light oil that must be burnt [i.e., consecrated oil offered to priests that became impure—DNB and JNT] in synagogues and houses of study and dark alleys and over sick persons by the authority of a priest. If the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest and she was accustomed to visit her father, her father may light it by her authority. They may light it in a wedding feast [בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה], but not in a house of mourning. (m. Ter. 11:10)

L30-39 The Waiting Maidens parable concludes with wording that is at times close to, and at other times identical with, the first part of the Closed Door saying as it appears in Luke 13:25. Although this similarity has given rise to theories that in Luke 13:25 the author of Luke preserves a fragment of the Waiting Maidens parable or that the author of Matthew whipped up Waiting Maidens from sayings now preserved only in Luke 12:35 and Luke 13:25, we believe the reason for the similarity between Closed Door and Waiting Maidens is that the Waiting Maidens parable was intended to reiterate the warning sounded in Closed Door, both pericopae being parts of the same teaching discourse (see the Conjectured Stages of Transmission discussion above).

L30 καὶ ἐκλείσθη ἡ θύρα (GR). Whereas Closed Door described a householder rising and shutting the door in the active voice, here the door is described in the passive voice as being shut. The variation is due to the needs of the different contexts in which the descriptions appear. Since Matthew’s wording in L30 reverts easily to Hebrew, we have adopted it without modification for GR.

וְנִנְעֶלֶת הַדֶּלֶת (HR). On reconstructing κλείειν (kleiein, “to close,” “to lock”) with נָעַל (nā‘al, “lock,” “close”), see Friend in Need, Comment to L11. נִנְעֶלֶת (nin‘elet) is the Mishnaic Hebrew form of the feminine singular nif‘al participle. It occurs in the following example:

דלת הננעלת לא במהרה תפתח

The closed [הַנִּנְעֶלֶת] door is not soon opened. (b. Bab. Kam. 80b)

On reconstructing θύρα (thūra, “door”) with דֶּלֶת (delet, “door”), see Friend in Need, Comment to L11. See also Closed Door, Comment to L4.

L31-32 καὶ ἦλθον αἱ παρθένοι αἱ μωραὶ (GR). There are several indications of Matthean redaction in L31-32. For instance, the adverb ὕστερον (hūsteron, “later,” “afterward”) occurs with a much greater frequency in the Gospel of Matthew than in the other Synoptic Gospels.^[177] And while the sole occurrence of Lukan-Matthean agreement to use ὕστερον (Matt. 22:27 ∥ Luke 20:32; cf. Mark 12:22) demonstrates that ὕστερον did occur, at least this once, in Anth., its presence here in Waiting Maidens, L31, is suspect nonetheless.^[178] Suspect, too, is the present tense of the verb ἔρχονται (erchontai, “they come”) in L31, which the author of Matthew probably changed from an aorist, since he often used historical presents for the sake of creating dramatic tension.^[179] Likewise, the use in L32 of the conjunction καί (kai, “and”) in the sense of “also” is often a sign of Greek redaction.^[180] And, as we discussed above in Comment to L27, the switch from referring to the maidens as “sensible” or “foolish” to “the prepared ones” and “the remaining maidens” appears to be a Matthean intervention intended to drive home the secondary message he wanted his readers to take away from the parable. Moreover, on several occasions the author of Matthew used the adjective λοιπός (loipos, “remaining,” “left over”) without agreement from the synoptic parallels,^[181] which suggests that λοιπός belongs to the author of Matthew’s redactional vocabulary. We think it is likely, therefore, that in place of the Matthean-sounding ὕστερον δὲ ἔρχονται καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ παρθένοι (hūsteron de erchontai kai hai loipai parthenoi, “But afterwards come also the remaining maidens”), Anth. read, καὶ ἦλθον αἱ παρθένοι αἱ μωραί (kai ēlthon hai parthenoi hai mōrai, “And the foolish maidens came”).

וּבָאוּ הַבְּתוּלוֹת הַטִּפְּשׁוֹת (HR). On reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”) with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see above, Comment to L26.

On reconstructing παρθένος (parthenos, “maiden”) with בְּתוּלָה (b^etūlāh, “maiden”), see above, Comment to L2.

On reconstructing μωρός (mōros, “stupid,” “foolish”) with טִפֵּשׁ (ṭipēsh, “foolish,” “stupid”), see above, Comment to L5.

L33-34 [καὶ ἤρξαντο ἔξω ἑστάναι καὶ κρούειν τὴν θύραν] (GR). The wording in GR for L33-34 is adapted from Luke’s version of the Closed Door saying. Without this description Matthew’s parable is somewhat laconic,^[182] and the explicit reference to knocking would strengthen the connection to Song 5:2, although even without the knocking the connection to Song 5:2 is evident. It is possible that the omission of “and they began to stand outside and to knock on the door” represents an unusual kind of Matthean cross-pollination. In his version of Closed Door, which is embedded in the introduction to the Houses on Rock and Sand parable, the author of Matthew omitted the standing outside and knocking of the petitioners because this imagery did not fit his apocalyptic judgment scene.^[183] Perhaps his omission of the standing outside and knocking there influenced his omission of the standing outside and knocking here. Although we regard this possibility as a credible explanation, we recognize its speculative nature and have therefore placed GR and HR in L33-34 within brackets.

[וְהִתְחִילוּ לַעֲמוֹד בַּחוּץ וְלִדְפּוֹק עַל הַדֶּלֶת] (HR). On reconstructing ἄρχειν (archein, “to begin”) with הִתְחִיל (hitḥil, “begin”), see Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L8.

On reconstructing ἑστάναι (hestanai, “to stand”) with עָמַד (‘āmad, “stand”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L14.

On reconstructing ἔξω (exō, “outside”) with חוּץ (ḥūtz, “outside”), see Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, Comment to L18. There we supply examples of עָמַד בַּחוּץ (‘āmad baḥūtz, “stand outside”) in rabbinic sources and note that the LXX translators rendered בַּחוּץ + עָמַד with ἑστάναι + ἔξω in Gen. 24:31, Deut. 24:11 and 2 Esd. 10:13.

Elsewhere we have reconstructed the verb κρούειν (krouein, “to knock”) with הִרְתִּיק (hirtiq, “knock”),^[184] but here we have preferred the Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew verb דָּפַק (dāfaq, “knock,” “beat”) because of the likelihood that the Waiting Maidens parable alludes to the phrase קוֹל דּוֹדִי דוֹפֵק (qōl dōdi dōfēq, “The voice of my lover! He knocks!” or “The sound of my lover knocking!”) in Song 5:2. On the continued use of דָּפַק in Mishnaic Hebrew, see Closed Door, Comment to L8.

On reconstructing θύρα (thūra, “door”) with דֶּלֶת (delet, “door”), see above, Comment to L30.

L35 λέγουσαι (GR). Matthew’s participle λέγουσαι (legousai, “saying”) in L35, which in any case is Hebraic, is confirmed by the parallel usage of λέγοντες (legontes, “saying”) in Luke’s version of Closed Door.^[185] We have therefore accepted Matthew’s participle for GR.

לוֹמַר (HR). On reconstructing λέγειν (legein, “to say”) with אָמַר (’āmar, “say”), and on our preference for the Mishnaic form of the infinitive, see above, Comment to L21.

L36 κύριε ἄνοιξον ἡμῖν (GR). Matthew’s use of the double vocative κύριε κύριε (kūrie kūrie, “Lord! Lord!”) is carried over into the Waiting Maidens parable from Matthew’s version of Closed Door (L10), where it was also redactional, having been picked up from the opening of Houses on Rock and Sand (L2), where Jesus asked, “Why do you call to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ but not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46).^[186] Luke’s version of the Closed Door saying confirms that Closed Door and the parallel in Waiting Maidens had only a single vocative. The author of Luke, who used double vocatives more frequently than any other synoptic evangelist, would have had no reason to omit the double vocative if it had occurred in his source. See Closed Door, Comment to L10.^[187] Otherwise, we have accepted Matthew’s wording in L36 for GR.

אֲדוֹנֵנוּ פְּתַח לָנוּ (HR). On reconstructing κύριος (kūrios, “lord,” “master”) with אָדוֹן (’ādōn, “lord,” “master”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L10.

To אָדוֹן we have attached a pronominal suffix despite the lack of an equivalent in GR. We have noted, however, that it was typical of Greek translators of Hebrew texts to omit equivalents to pronominal suffixes attached to titles of address. Here we have used the first-person plural suffix because the foolish maidens, who have no individual characteristics, speak as a group with one voice, not as several individuals speaking for themselves.

On reconstructing ἀνοίγειν (anoigein, “to open”) with פָּתַח (pātaḥ, “open”), see Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L27.

There are two examples in LXX of imperative of ἀνοίγειν + dative personal pronoun (Ps. 117:19; Song 5:2). In both cases they occur as the translation of לְ- + פָּתַח + pronominal suffix:

ἀνοίξατέ μοι πύλας δικαιοσύνης

Open to me gates of righteousness…! (Ps. 117:19)

פִּתְחוּ לִי שַׁעֲרֵי צֶדֶק

Open to me gates of righteousness…! (Ps. 118:19)

φωνὴ ἀδελφιδοῦ μου, κρούει ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν ἄνοιξόν μοι, ἀδελφή μου, ἡ πλησίον μου, περιστερά μου, τελεία μου

The voice of my beloved relative, he knocks on the door. “Open to me, my sister, my neighbor, my dove, my perfect one!” (Song 5:2)

קוֹל דּוֹדִי דוֹפֵק פִּתְחִי־לִי אֲחֹתִי רַעְיָתִי יוֹנָתִי תַמָּתִי

The voice of my lover, he knocks. “Open to me, my sister, my beloved, my dove, my flawless one!” (Song 5:2)

Of course, we presume the Waiting Maidens parable intentionally echoes Song 5:2. The echo of Song 5:2, however, brings with it a note of irony. In Song of Songs it is the lover who knocks and asks for admittance, whereas in the parable it is the maidens who petition the groom. In an ancient Jewish source the lover’s request for admittance was interpreted as a demand for repentance:

פתחי לי, א″ר יסא א′ הקב″ה פתחי לי פתח כחרירה של מחט ואני פותח לכם פתח שיהו אהליות וכצוצטריות ניכנסין בו

Open to me! [Song 5:2]. Rabbi Yose said, “The Holy One, blessed be he, said, ‘Open to me an opening [of repentance] the size of the eye of a needle, and I will open for you an opening that camps and siege engines may enter it.’” (Pesikta de-Rav Khana 5:6 [ed. Mandelbaum, 1:87]; cf. Song Rab. 5:2 §2 [ed. Etelsohn, 198])

קול דודי דופק על ידי הנביאים פתח לי פתח של תשובה כדי שאבוא ואגאל אתכם

The voice of my beloved! He knocks! [Song 5:2] through the prophets. Open to me [Song 5:2] an opening of repentance so that I may come and redeem you. (Midrash Shir HaShirim 5:2 [ed. Grunhut-Wertheimer, 94])

In the Waiting Maidens parable, on the other hand, the foolish maidens who ask for admittance represent those who neglected to practice repentance and good deeds. In Song of Songs the scene in which the lover comes to his beloved at night is ambiguous. Does the scene describe something that actually happened, or was the beloved only dreaming? A few verses further we read:

פָּתַחְתִּי אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְדוֹדִי חָמַק עָבָר נַפְשִׁי יָצְאָה בְדַבְּרוֹ בִּקַּשְׁתִּיהוּ וְלֹא מְצָאתִיהוּ קְרָאתִיו וְלֹא עָנָנִי

I opened to my lover, but my lover had turned and gone. My soul departed at his speaking. I sought him, but I did not find him, I called him, but he did not answer. (Song 5:6)

The beloved’s lament over her failure to find her lover after opening the door for him is reminiscent of the prophetic warning to seek the Lord while he may be found:

דִּרְשׁוּ יי בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ קְרָאֻהוּ בִּהְיוֹתוֹ קָרוֹב

Seek the Lord while he may be found, call him while he is near. (Isa. 55:6)

The beloved in Song 5:6, however, opened the door to her lover too late. In rabbinic sources Isa. 55:6 was understood as a warning that the opportunity for repentance did not last forever. Flusser cited a parable that illustrates this point:^[188] 

אמר ר′ חנינא משל לשיירא שהיתה מהלכת בדרך, כיון שחשכה לה, באה אצל הבורגנין, אמר לה הבורגנין הכנס לי לבורגן, מפני חיות רעות, ומפני הלסטים, אמרה לו השיירא אין דרכי ליכנס לבורגני, כיון שהלך בא עליו אישון לילה ואפלה, חזר ובא אצל הבורגנין, והיה צועק ומבקש עליו שיפתח לו, אמר ליה הבורגנין אין דרכו של בורגנין להפתח בלילה, ואין דרכו של בורגני לקבל בשעה זאת, בשעה שבקשתי לא רצית, ועכשיו אין אני יכול לפתוח לך, כך אמר להם הקב″ה לישראל, שובו בנים שובבים, דרשו ה′ בהמצאו, ואין אחד מהן מבקש לשוב, אמר הקב″ה אלכה ואשובה אל מקומי הראשון, כיון שנמסרו למלכיות ולאומות, הם צועקים למה ה′ תעמוד ברחוק, אמר להם הקב″ה כשבקשתי מכם לא קבלתם, עכשיו שאתם מבקשים ממני איני שומע לכם, מדה כנגד מדה

Rabbi Hanina said, “A parable. [To what may the matter be compared?] To a caravan that was going along the road. When it grew dark it came to a khan [i.e., a caravan station—DNB and JNT]. The keeper said to it, ‘Enter my khan, for there are dangerous beasts and bandits.’ The caravan said to him, ‘It is not my custom to enter a khan.’ As it continued, nighttime and darkness came upon it, and it returned and came to the khan, and it was shouting and asking it that it might open to it [שיפתח לו]. The keeper of the khan said to it, ‘It is not the custom of a khan to be opened [להפתח] at night, and it is not the custom of the keeper to receive [visitors] at this hour. When I asked, you were not willing, and now I am not able to open to you [לפתוח לך].’ Thus the Holy One, blessed be he, said to Israel, Return, O backsliding children! [Jer. 3:14, 22], Seek the Lord while he may be found [Isa. 55:6], but not one of them wanted to return. The Holy One, blessed be he, said, I will go and return to my original place [Hos. 5:15; cf. Hos. 2:9]. As soon as they were handed over to the empires and the peoples, they cried out, Why, O Lord, do you stand far off? [Ps. 10:1]. The Holy One, blessed be he, said to them, ‘When I asked you, you would not accept. Now that you are asking, I will not listen to you. Measure for measure!’” (Midrash Tehillim 10:2 [ed. Buber, 92-93])

Common to both parables is a refusal to open a door or a gate, and in both cases this refusal illustrates the consequence for failing to repent when the opportunity had been given. As the rabbinic proverb says, “The closed door is not soon opened” (b. Bab. Kam. 80b).^[189] 

L37 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν (GR). Matthew’s wording in L37 appears to have been subjected to light stylistic polishing. The Lukan parallel suggests that Anth. read, καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν (kai apokritheis eipen, “and answering he said”), which is the wording we have adopted for GR.

וְעָנָה וְאָמַר (HR). On reconstructing ἀποκρίνειν (apokrinein, “to answer”) with עָנָה (‘ānāh, “answer”), see above, Comment to L21.

On reconstructing εἰπεῖν (eipein, “to say”) with אָמַר (’āmar, “say”), see above, Comment to L18.

L38 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (Matt. 25:12). As we noted in Closed Door, Comment to L13, the phrase ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (amēn legō hūmin, “Amen I say to you”) in Matt. 25:12 is probably redactional.^[190] Elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels this distinctive phrase is found only on the lips of Jesus,^[191] and rarely occurs in a parable. When ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν does occur in parables (Luke 12:37; Matt. 24:47 ∥ Luke 12:44) these words are not spoken by characters in the parable but by Jesus, interjecting a comment on the parable in his capacity as the narrator. Aside from Waiting Maidens, the only other exceptions to the rule that ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν appears exclusively on the lips of Jesus are in Matt. 25:40, 45, where “the king,” identified in Matt. 25:31 as the Son of Man, uses the phrase in Judging the Gentiles. Therefore, as Flusser suggested, the placement of the words ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν on the lips of the groom probably reflects the author of Matthew’s attempt to identify the groom as representing the Son of Man.^[192] 

L39 οὐκ οἶδα ὑμᾶς (GR). Matthew’s wording in L39 reverts easily to Hebrew and is identical to the wording in the Lukan parallel in Closed Door. We therefore have no hesitation in adopting Matthew’s wording in L39 for GR.

Some scholars assert that the statement “I do not know you” in the Waiting Maidens parable reflects a rabbinic ban formula “by which a disciple is forbidden access to a teacher,”^[193] and should be interpreted as meaning “I will have nothing to do with you.”^[194] This assertion, however, is groundless. Actually, it is Matthew’s redactional phrase οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς (oudepote egnōn hūmas, “I never knew you”; Matt. 7:23) in his version of Closed Door (L21) that resembles a curt remark Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi once made to one of his disciples: איני מכירך מעולם (“I never knew you”; b. Moed Kat. 16a). Nevertheless, as that story makes clear, איני מכירך מעולם was not an established ban formula. The disciple toward whom this remark was directed merely inferred from his master’s attitude that he ought to put himself under the restrictions of someone who has been formally censured. Since איני מכירך מעולם was not a set ban formula in the time of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi (ca. 200 C.E.), it clearly was not a set formula in the time of Jesus.

לֹא יָדַעְתִּי אֶתְכֶן (HR).^[195] On reconstructing εἰδεῖν (eidein, “to know”) with יָדַע (yāda‘, “know”), see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L20. There we note that Hebrew often uses a perfect (≈ past tense) form of יָדַע where English speakers might have expected a participle (≈ present tense), as we see in the following example:

וישובו ויבכו גם בני ישראל, ר′ שמעון אומר הא ידעת שהראשונים לא היו מבני ישר′‏

And again they wept, also the children of Israel [Num. 11:4]. Rabbi Shimon says, “Thus you know [יָדַעְתָּ] that the first ones [to weep] were not of the children of Israel.” (Sifre Num. Zuta, BeHa‘alotcha 11:4 [ed. Horovitz, 269])

Flusser suggested that the reason the groom did not recognize the foolish maidens was that they were standing in the dark without burning torches to illuminate their faces.^[196] Maybe so, although this suggestion presumes that the maidens were unsuccessful in their attempt to purchase oil. But the search for explanations of this kind are really overthinking the parable. The groom does not recognize the maidens because the narrator of the parable did not wish him to.^[197] The failure or refusal of the groom to recognize the foolish maidens happened because it illustrates the point the parable was intended to make. The parable does not describe an actual event, so there are no reasons for why things happen in a parable other than what the narrator wanted to have happen. “Why?” is rarely a useful question when posed to the scenarios described in parables. The answer probably comes from the reality the parable illustrates, not from the parallel reality (or pseudo-reality) of the parable itself.^[198] 

L40-42 At the conclusion of the parable the author of Matthew urged his readers to stay awake “because you do not know the day or the hour” (Matt. 25:13). The grounds for this warning reiterates the message of Day and Hour Unknown (Matt. 24:36 ∥ Mark 13:32),^[199] while the warning to keep awake repeats the message of Matt. 24:42 ∥ Mark 13:35 in Be Ready for the Son of Man.^[200] In Mark’s version of Be Ready for the Son of Man the command to “stay awake…that, coming suddenly, he might not find you sleeping” (Mark 13:35-36) is logical, but as a lesson to be drawn from Waiting Maidens “stay awake” makes less sense, since all the maidens—both the foolish and the sensible—fall asleep.^[201] Neither does Matthew’s reasoning “because you do not know the day or the hour” fit the details of the parable, since the maidens knew precisely which night the groom was coming. It is clear, therefore, that the author of Matthew attached this warning to the parable in order to derive from it a lesson it was not intended to teach.^[202] Since Matt. 25:13 was added to the parable by the author of Matthew, who composed it on the basis of Mark 13:32 (∥ Matt. 24:36) and Mark 13:35 (∥ Matt. 24:42),^[203] we have excluded L40-42 from GR and HR.

Redaction Analysis^[204] 

Waiting Maidens parable
Matthew		Anthology
Total Words:	170	Total Words:	126 [150]
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	109 [112]	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	109 [112]
% Identical to Anth.:	64.12 [65.88]	% of Anth. in Matt.:	86.51 [74.67]
Click here for details.

Although in Waiting Maidens the author of Matthew took over most of Anth.’s wording, Matthean redaction was nevertheless extensive.^[205] The author of Matthew began by placing Waiting Maidens in a new context, inserting it into his version of the eschatological discourse, where he decided to make it illustrate the need for wakefulness and preparedness ahead of the Son of Man’s coming. Because the Waiting Maidens parable was not originally intended to illustrate this point, the author of Matthew’s repurposing of the parable was not entirely successful. Contrary to the lesson he wanted to teach about wakefulness, all the maidens in the parable fall asleep. And despite the author of Matthew’s reasoning that wakefulness is required because the day and the hour of the Son of Man’s coming are unknown, the maidens in the parable knew precisely which night the groom would arrive.

In order to accomplish the repurposing of the parable, the author of Matthew rewrote the introduction (L1) in order to apply it to what the Kingdom of Heaven will be like in the future. In doing so, the author of Matthew equated the Kingdom of Heaven with the parousia, contrary to Jesus’ usual practice of speaking of the Kingdom of Heaven as a present reality. The author of Matthew also tacked a “moral” onto the end of the parable (L40-42) drawn from Day and Hour Unknown (Matt. 24:36 ∥ Mark 13:32) and Be Ready for the Son of Man (Matt. 24:42 ∥ Mark 13:35). Throughout the parable the author of Matthew repeatedly stressed personal possession of torches and oil (L3, L7, L8, L10, L17, L24) in order to emphasize the need for individual preparedness for the Son of Man’s coming. By changing “sensible” and “foolish” to “the prepared ones” (L27) and “the remaining maidens” (L32) the author of Matthew made the theme of preparedness impossible for his readers to miss. And by inserting γάρ (gar, “for”) in L7 the author of Matthew defined the maidens’ foolishness as unpreparedness by neglecting to bring oil for their torches.

From Faithful or Faithless Slave, L51, (Matt. 24:48 ∥ Luke 12:45) the author of Matthew added the motif of the groom’s delay (L11). This addition, along with the secondary insertion of the words “Amen! I say to you” in L38, secondarily equated the groom in Waiting Maidens with the Son of Man, whom the author of Matthew identified as Jesus (cf. Matt. 12:40; 24:3). It is possible that “into the wedding” in L29 echoes “from the wedding” in Faithful or Faithless Slave, L7 (Luke 12:36).

In the Waiting Maidens parable there are also signs of Matthean cross-pollination. The double vocative κύριε κύριε (kūrie kūrie, “Lord! Lord!”), with which the foolish maidens address the groom, is probably not original to the parable, but crossed over from Matthew’s version of Closed Door, where it had been picked up from the introduction to the Houses on Rock and Sand parable. It is also possible that cross-pollination accounts for the omission of the description of the maidens standing outside and knocking on the door (L33-34). If the author of Matthew did omit these details from the parable, then it is likely that he did not recognize that Song 5:2 informed the construction of the parable, since this omission somewhat obscures the scriptural allusion.

Other Matthean changes were driven less by ideology and more by stylistic concerns. These include the use of his go-to adverb τότε (tote, “then”) in L1 and L16, the use of genitive absolute constructions in L11 and L25, and writing ὕστερον δὲ ἔρχονται (“but afterward come”) in place of Anth.’s καὶ ἦλθον (“and they came”) in L31. Likewise, Matthew’s un-Hebraic ὁ δέ + participle + aorist in L37 probably replaced a more Hebraic καί + participle + aorist in Anth.

Results of This Research

1. What kind of lights (lamps, torches, lanterns) do the maidens in the parable take with them? It is surprising that there is any room for debate regarding what kind of lights are mentioned in the Waiting Maidens parable. The Greek noun λαμπάς (lampas), which is used in the parable, unambiguously means “torch.” The outdoor conditions in which the lights in the parable were used require torches. And every detail in the parable matches what we know of ancient vessel torches. The only reasons why there is any debate regarding the identity of the maidens’ lights are ignorance of ancient vessel torches and the derivation of the English term “lamp” from the Greek noun λαμπάς (“torch”).

2. Is the Waiting Maidens parable an allegory? The author of Matthew’s repurposing of the Waiting Maidens parable tends toward allegory.^[206] The sensible and foolish maidens represent Christians who are either prepared or unprepared for the Son of Man’s coming. The groom is the Son of Man. The delay until midnight represents the unknown hour of the Son of Man’s parousia. We doubt, however, that even in Matthew the parable is a full-blown allegory. The falling asleep of the maidens, which is at cross-purposes with the exhortation to remain awake, probably does not represent death. Neither does the waking of the maidens represent resurrection. The author of Matthew hardly believed that all the members of his community would be dead before the Son of Man’s coming. If he had, what would have been the point of his urging watchfulness, wakefulness and preparedness for the parousia which would catch everyone by surprise?

Neither was Jesus’ use of the Waiting Maiden’s parable allegorical, although it did rest on an allegorical interpretation of Song of Songs as a love poem describing God’s love for Israel expressed through the past and future redemptions. Rather than an allegory, the Waiting Maidens parable was intended as an analogy. The situation Jesus’ audience was in was analogous to the situation of the maidens. Just as the maidens had an opportunity prior to the groom’s coming to acquire oil for their torches, so Jesus’ audience had an opportunity to be sensible by acquiring the real-world equivalent to oil: repentance and good deeds that would reverse social injustices. If Jesus’ audience failed to be sensible now, then they would find themselves excluded from the final redemption, just as the foolish maidens were excluded from the wedding feast.

3. What is message of the Waiting Maidens parable? Although the author of Matthew used the Waiting Maidens parable as a lesson in wakefulness and preparedness for the Son of Man’s coming, this usage is clearly secondary, and only partially successful. The original message of the Waiting Maidens parable emerges when the allusions to Exod. 11:4-6 and Song 5:2 alert readers to the parable’s concern with the final redemption. This, combined with the symbolic significance of oil as representing repentance and good deeds, unlocks the message of the parable. The parable urges listeners to be sensible by acquiring repentance and good deeds in the present so that they will be able to participate in the final redemption.

Conclusion

Jesus addressed the Waiting Maidens parable to an audience that was acting foolishly. They balked at his demand for social justice that would come at the expense of their own wealth, power and privilege. By relating their situation to the sensible and foolish maidens, Jesus demonstrated the wisdom of acquiring repentance and good deeds now for the sake of participation in the final redemption, and portrayed the folly of inaction.

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

Notes

1. For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
2. This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩
3. Flusser’s Hebrew translation/reconstruction of the Waiting Maidens parable appeared in David Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” in his Jewish Sources in Early Christianity: Studies and Essays (Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim, 1979 [in Hebrew]), 150-209, esp. 166-167. We have used the term translation/reconstruction because at certain points Flusser does not strictly adhere to the Greek text of Matt. 25:1-13 and because he attempted to use vocabulary he believed would have occurred in the original form of the parable. ↩
4. The English translation of Flusser’s translation/reconstruction of the Waiting Maidens parable is our own—DNB and JNT. ↩
5. The two parts of Faithful or Faithless Slave, though separated by Unexpected Thief, closely parallel one another in form and vocabulary. ↩
6. This we know from Matthew’s agreement with Luke to place Unexpected Thief ahead of the second part of Faithful or Faithless Slave. Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), 132-133. ↩
7. On the First Reconstructor’s expansion of Jesus’ prophecy as it was preserved in Anth., see the introduction to the “Destruction and Redemption” complex. ↩
8. Cf. Dodd’s puzzlement (The Parables of the Kingdom, 130 n. 1) at the relationship between Mark 13:37 and Luke 12:41. Wenham argued that Luke and Mark drew on a common source, Luke preserving the question and Mark preserving the answer. See David Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 57-62. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 2:797. ↩
9. Bauckham, too, believed that “Luke’s group of three parousia parables” in Luke 12:35-46 “were probably already collected in the sayings source.” See Richard Bauckham, “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse,” New Testament Studies 23.2 (1976): 162-176, esp. 166. ↩
10. Pace Dodd (The Parables of the Kingdom, 137-138), Knox (2:70, 80) and Flusser (Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus [Bern: Peter Lang, 1981], 177), who believed that Luke 12:35-36 preserves reminiscences of the Waiting Maidens parable. ↩
11. Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 51. ↩
12. Ibid. For other allegorical interpretations of the Waiting Maidens parable, see McNeile, 360; Beare, Earliest, 217 §227; Davies-Allison, 3:392. And see especially Karl Paul Donfried, “The Allegory of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-13) as a Summary of Matthean Theology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 93.3 (1974): 415-428. ↩
13. Cf. McNeile, 363; Manson, Sayings, 243; Kilpatrick, 76; Bundy, 474 §387; Beare, Earliest, 218 §227; Jeremias, Parables, 52; Schweizer, 466. ↩
14. Cf. Luz, 3:228; Peter J. Tomson, “Parables, Fiction, and Midrash: The Ten Maidens and the Bridegroom (Matt 25:1-13),” in his Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 253-260, esp. 260. Pace Bultmann, 176. ↩
15. See Creed, 176; Manson, Sayings, 242; Donfried, “The Allegory of the Ten Virgins,” 422; Beare, Matt., 483; Gundry, Matt., 497. Cf. A. B. Bruce, 560; Bundy, 474 §387; Bovon, 2:229. See also Randall Buth, “Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha” (JS2, 247-319), esp. 296-297 n. 81. ↩
16. See McNeile, 363; Bundy, 474 §387; Davies-Allison, 3:393. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 1002, 1009. See also Llewellyn Howes, “‘I Do Not Know You!’: Reconsidering the Redaction of Q 13:25-27,” Journal of Theological Studies NS 67.2 (2016): 479-506, esp. 484. ↩
17. See Plummer, Luke, 330; Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 137-138; Knox, 2:70, 80; Jeremias, Parables, 96. See also David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (JOC, 552-560), esp. 555 n. 2; idem, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 87, 177; Jan Lambrecht, Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 161; François Bovon, “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-30 Back to Q: A Study in Lukan Redaction,” in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson (ed. Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 285-294, esp. 288-289. Cf. Bundy, 474 §387. ↩
18. Cf. Fitzmyer, 2:988. Wenham (The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse, 82) offered yet another alternative. He suggested that Luke 12:35 “was the pre-synoptic conclusion to the parable of the virgins.” In support of his thesis Wenham argued that Luke 12:35 “would be an eminently suitable conclusion to the parable,” despite the fact that Luke 12:35 refers to lamps, not torches, and the fact that the Waiting Maidens parable never refers to the maidens girding their loins. Wenham (ibid., 91) considered Luke 13:25 to be “a fragment/echo of the parable of the virgins.” ↩
19. Cf. Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 157; Tomson, “Parables, Fiction, and Midrash: The Ten Maidens and the Bridegroom (Matt 25:1-13),” 260. ↩
20. Cf. Tomson, “Parables, Fiction, and Midrash: The Ten Maidens and the Bridegroom (Matt 25:1-13),” 257-258. ↩
21. Cf. Tomson, “Parables, Fiction, and Midrash: The Ten Maidens and the Bridegroom (Matt 25:1-13),” 259. ↩
22. The combining of Song 5:2 and Exod. 11:4 is actually attested in a late rabbinic midrash:

    אני ישנה ולבי ער קול דודי דופק פתחי לי וג′ אמרה כנסת ישר′ לפני הקב″ה, רבון העולמים, אני ישנה מבית המקדש ולבי ער בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות, אני ישנה מן הקרבנות ולבי ער במצות וצדקות, אני ישנה מן המצות ולבי ער לעשותן, אני ישנה מן הקץ, ולבי ער לגאולה, אני ישנה מן הגאולה ולבו של הקב″ה ער לגאלינו…קול דודי דופק זה משה, ויאמר משה כה אמר י″י כחצות הלילה אני וג′ פתחי לי, א″ר יסא א′ הקב″ה פתחי לי פתח כחרירה של מחט ואני פותח לכם פתח שיהו אהליות וכצוצטריות ניכנסין בו

    I am asleep, but my heart is awake. The voice of my lover! He knocks! “Open to me!” etc. [Song 5:2]: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, blessed be he, “Master of the Worlds, I am asleep with respect to the Temple [since it has been destroyed], but my heart is awake in the synagogues and the houses of study. I am asleep with respect to the sacrifices, but my heart is awake with mitzvot and acts of social justice. I am asleep with respect to the commandments [pertaining to the divine service], but my heart is awake to do them. I am asleep with respect to the time, but my heart is awake to the redemption. I am asleep with respect to the redemption, but the heart of the Holy One, blessed be he, is awake to redeem us…. The voice of my lover! He knocks! [Song 5:2]. This is Moses [as it said], And Moses said, ‘Thus says the Lord, about the middle of the night I am’ etc. [Exod. 11:4]. Open to me! [Song 5:2].” Rabbi Yose said, “The Holy One, blessed be he, said, ‘Open to me an opening [of repentance] the size of the eye of a needle, and I will open for you an opening that camps and siege engines may enter it.’” (Pesikta de-Rav Khana 5:6 [ed. Mandelbaum, 1:87]; cf. Song Rab. 5:2 §2 [ed. Etelsohn, 198])

    Pesikta de-Rav Khana not only combines Song 5:2 and Exod. 11:4, it also combines thoughts of Israel’s redemption from Egypt (identifying Moses as the lover who knocks in the night) with hopes for Israel’s final redemption (Israel is “asleep” with regard to the time [i.e., it does not know when redemption will come], but it is awake to the redemption [i.e., it hopes and longs for redemption]).

    Another midrashic treatment of Song 5:2 combines thoughts of the past and future redemptions, but without explicit reference to Exod. 11:4:

    אני ישנה ולבי ער זש″ה הנה לא ינום ולא יישן שומר ישראל ישנה אני במלכיות ולבי ער זה הקב″ה שנאמר צור לבבי וחלקי אלהים לעולם קול דודי דופק על ידי הנביאים פתח לי פתח של תשובה כדי שאבוא ואגאל אתכם אחותי רעיתי יונתי תמתי כנגד ארבע מלכיות…ד″א אני ישנה במצרים שבאותו לילה הקב″ה שלח עליהם שינה ערבה שלא יפחדו מחמת המחבל ואפילו כן היו רואים שונאיהם תשתנקים בשנתם

    I am asleep, but my heart is awake [Song 5:2]. This is what the Scripture says: Behold, the guard of Israel does not slumber or sleep [Ps. 121:4]. I am asleep because of the empires, but my heart is awake, this is the Holy One, blessed be he, as it is said, God is the rock, my heart and my portion forever [Ps. 73:26]. The voice of my beloved! He knocks! [Song 5:2] through the prophets. Open to me [Song 5:2] an opening of repentance so that I may come and redeem you. My sister, my beloved, my dove, my blameless one [Song 5:2]: corresponding to the Four Empires [⟨Babylon, Persia-Media, Greece, Rome⟩ destined to dominate Israel before the final redemption—DNB and JNT]…. Another interpretation. I am asleep [Song 5:2] in Egypt, for on that very night the Holy One, blessed be he, sent upon them a pleasant sleep so that they would not be afraid of the destroying wrath, and yet they would see their enemies strangled in their sleep. (Midrash Shir HaShirim 5:2 [ed. Grunhut-Wertheimer, 94])

    Text according to Eliezer Halevi Grunhut, ed., Midrash Shir HaShirim: Printed from a Geniza Manuscript (2d ed.; ed. Joseph Chaim Wertheimer; Jerusalem: Ktav Yad VaSefer Institute, 1981 [1897]), 93. ↩

23. The table below shows the parallels between Song 2:10-13 and details of Luke’s version of the Fig Tree parable:

    Song of Songs 2:10-13	Luke 21:28-31
    2:10 My beloved answered and said to me,
    “Arouse yourself, my beloved, my beauty, and go,	21:28 When these things begin to happen, straighten yourself and lift up your head,
    2:11 for the winter is past, the rain is over and gone.
    2:12 The flowers appear in the land,
    the time of zāmir [‘singing/pruning’] has arrived,	for the time of your redemption has arrived.
    and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land.
    	21:29-30 And he told them a parable:
    2:13 The fig tree forms its green figs,	“Look at the fig tree…when it has already put forth
    	you see and know for yourselves that the summer is near.
    and the flowering vines give their scent.
    Arouse yourself, my beloved, my beauty, and go.”	21:31 In the same way, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.”

    The connection between Song 2:10-13 and the Fig Tree parable is discussed in greater detail in the LOY commentary to our reconstruction of the Fig Tree parable. ↩

24. On the Song of Songs in the teachings of Jesus, see Peter J. Tomson, “The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus and the Development of the Exposition of the Song,” New Testament Studies 61 (2015): 429-447. ↩
25. Cf. A. B. Bruce, 299; Bundy, 474 §387; Beare, Matt., 482. ↩
26. See Luz, 3:228, 234-235. Cf. Kilpatrick, 32. ↩
27. See Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L38. ↩
28. See Houses on Rock and Sand, Comment to L9-20. ↩
29. See Closed Door, under the “Story Placement” subheading. ↩
30. Since the Gospel of Luke has more instances of double vocatives than Matthew, it appears unlikely that the author of Luke or the First Reconstructor would have eliminated the double vocative if it had occurred in their source(s) for Closed Door. See Houses on Rock and Sand, Comment to L10, and Closed Door, Comment to L10. ↩
31. Cf. Hagner (2:727) and Culpepper (489), who supposed that the influence went in the opposite direction. ↩
32. On the relationship between the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew, see Huub van de Sandt, “The Didache and its Relevance for Understanding the Gospel of Matthew,” Jerusalem Perspective (2016) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/16271/]. ↩
33. As we noted in the introduction to the “Torah and the Kingdom of Heaven” complex, Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing (Matt. 7:15) likely reflects the influence of Did. 16:3. ↩
34. Cf. France, Matt., 948 n. 53. ↩
35. Cf. Bultmann, 176; Luz, 3:228. ↩
36. Cf. A. B. Bruce, 299; Jeremias, Parables, 51; Schweizer, 466; Davies-Allison, 3:394; Nolland, Matt., 1003; France, Matt., 948. See also Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 154. For a different view, see McNeile, 360. ↩
37. Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 52; Gundry, Matt., 497. On τότε as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L22. ↩
38. The verb form ὁμοιωθήσεται occurs only in Matt. 7:24, 26; 25:1. ↩
39. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 497; Nolland, Matt., 1003. ↩
40. Cf. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 137; Beare, Matt., 481; Young, JHJP, 189. ↩
41. Pace Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 161; Davies-Allison, 3:394. ↩
42. We employed the same reconstruction in Darnel Among the Wheat, L2. ↩
43. Cf. A. B. Bruce, 299; Jeremias, Parables, 174; Beare, Matt., 481; Snodgrass, 515. ↩
44. Cf. Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 186. ↩
45. Ibid. ↩
46. Ibid., 187. ↩
47. The word קוֹנְדֵס (qōn^edēs), here translated “pole,” is evidently a corruption of קוֹנְטוֹס (qōn^eṭōs, “pole”), derived from κοντός (kontos, “pole”). See Jastrow, 1334. ↩
48. See Lightfoot, 2:322; Gill, 7:302; Strack-Billerbeck, 1:969; Luz, 3:229 n. 25. See also, Gerhard Schneider, “λαμπάς, άδος, ἡ,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 2:338-339, esp. 338. Lightfoot (2:322) attributed this testimony to a Rabbi Solomon. Gill (7:302) attributed this testimony to “Jarchi.” Luz (3:299 n. 25) and Schneider (“λαμπάς, άδος, ἡ,” 338) followed Strack-Billerbeck (1:969) in attributing this testimony to Rashi, but as Tomson noted (“Parables, Fiction, and Midrash: The Ten Maidens and the Bridegroom [Matt 25:1-13],” 256 n. 14), the correct attribution must be to ר″ש, i.e., Rabbi Samson ben Abraham of Sens (RaSh) (ca. 1150-ca. 1230) on m. Kel. 2:8, although רא″ש, i.e., Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel (“the Rosh”) (1250 or 1259-1327) records the same testimony in his commentary on m. Kel. 2:8. This is a cautionary tale of what happens when scholars fail to check the primary sources. ↩
49. Luz (3:229 n. 25) incorrectly states that this custom pertained to the land of Israel. ↩
50. Of even more dubious relevance are the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century wedding customs in Cairo and in Arab villages of Palestine upon which F. C. Burkitt (“The Parable of the Ten Virgins,” Journal of Theological Studies 30.119 [1929]: 267-270, esp. 268 n. 2) and Joachim Jeremias (Parables, 172-174; “Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” in Soli Deo Gloria: New Testament Studies in Honor of William Childs Robinson [ed. J. McDowell Richards; Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1968], 83-87, 147-149, esp. 84, 86 [translated by Shirley C. Guthrie from idem, “ΛΑΜΠΑΔΕΣ Mt 25 1. 3.f. 7.f.,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56.3/4 ⟨1965⟩: 196-201]) based their interpretations of the Waiting Maidens parable. Cf. Beare, Matt., 481; Luz, 3:229 n. 25; France, Matt., 947 n. 48; Snodgrass, 513. ↩
51. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1070. ↩
52. See Dos Santos, 31. ↩
53. See Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, L44, L78. ↩
54. Delitzsch translated παρθένος in the Waiting Maidens parable as עַלְמָה (‘almāh, “virgin”). In LXX παρθένος occurs only once as the translation of עַלְמָה (Gen. 24:43). ↩
55. “Bridesmaids” is both anachronistic (cf. France, Matt., 946; Culpepper, 487) and eisegetical, since the parable nowhere indicates that the maidens were attendant upon the bride (cf. Burkitt, “The Parable of the Ten Virgins,” 268; pace Jeremias, “Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 86; Albright-Mann, 302). ↩
56. Burkitt, on the other hand, preferred to think of the maidens as “little girls,” for which παιδία (paidia, “little children”) or κοράσια (korasia, “girls”) might have been more appropriate. See Burkitt, “The Parable of the Ten Virgins,” 268. ↩
57. See Demands of Discipleship, L10, L22, L32. ↩
58. Cf. McNeile, 360; Schweizer, 465; Gundry, Matt., 498; Davies-Allison, 3:395; Luz, 3:229. ↩
59. Luz (3:229 n. 22) refuted the few examples generally cited in favor of λαμπάς meaning “lamp.” ↩
60. Cf. Samuel Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie (3 vols.; Leipzig: Buchhandlung Gustav Fock, 1910-1912), 1:68; Shmuel Safrai, “Home and Family” (Safrai-Stern, 2:728-792), esp. 746. ↩
61. Cf. Jeremias, “Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 84; Gundry, Matt., 498; Luz, 3:229; Culpepper, 487. ↩
62. Cf., e.g., Eta Linnemann, The Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition (trans. John Sturdy [Gleichnisse Jesu, Einfuhrung und Auslegung, 1961]; London: SPCK, 1977), 124; H. B. Green, 205. ↩
63. See Davies-Allison, 3:396; Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse, 81; Culpepper, 487. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 1004. ↩
64. Cf. Jeremias, “Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 83.
    
    Descœudres and Harrison touched on this etymological peculiarity in Jean-Paul Descœudres and Derek Harrison, “Greek and Roman Lamps in the Abbey Museum, Caboolture,” Mediterranean Archaeology 9/10 (1996/1997): 77-103. There they note (78-79) that “In northern countries, where no fuel comparable to olive oil in terms of efficiency and economy was available…, the torch and the candle remained the more common means of lighting,” and further explain (79 n. 6) that “It may be worth remembering in this context that the English ‘lamp’, like its French and German counterparts, derive from the Greek word ‘torch’ (λαμπάς), rather than from λύχνος (Gk. for lamp) or from Latin lucerna.” ↩
65. Jeremais, Parables, 174; idem, “Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 84; Schweizer, 465-466; Gundry (Matt., 498), Davies-Allison (3:395), Nolland (Matt., 1004-1005, 1007) and France (Matt., 948) envisioned this kind of torch. ↩
66. See August Friedrich von Pauly and Georg Wissowa, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 6.12 (1909): 1948; Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, 1:68. ↩
67. Cf. A. B. Bruce, 299; Luz, 3:230. ↩
68. See Luz, 3:230 n. 27. The repeated contention (cf. Jeremias, “Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 84; Schweizer, 466; Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 158; Gundry, Matt., 489-499; France, Matt., 949; Witherington, 460) that torches burn for only about fifteen minutes pertains to firebrand-type torches, not to vessel torches. ↩
69. It is surprising that Jeremias (“Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 148-149 n. 14) rejected the identification of the torches in Waiting Maidens as “vessel” or “receptacle” torches, but Jeremias relied too heavily on nineteenth- and twentieth-century Arab customs in Palestine. ↩
70. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:852-853. ↩
71. See Dos Santos, 101. ↩
72. See Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, 1:68; Jastrow, 715; Blackmann, 6:40 n. 1; Luz, 3:230 n. 28. ↩
73. Jeremias (“Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 84), on the other hand, preferred אֲבוּקָה as the equivalent of λαμπάς. ↩
74. See Jeremias, Parables, 175; idem, “Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 86; Schweizer, 466; Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 158, 159; Gundry, Matt., 498-499. Cf. France, Matt., 947; Witherington, 460. ↩
75. See, for instance, the dancing of the ḥasidim with torches in the Temple reported in m. Suk. 5:4 and t. Suk. 4:2. ↩
76. See Jeremias, “Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 84. Cf. Davies-Allison, 3:396; Luz, 3:234 n. 56. ↩
77. Cf. McNeile, 360-361. ↩
78. See McNeile, 361; Burkitt, “The Parable of the Ten Virgins,” 267-270; Bundy, 473-474 §387; Beare, Matt., 481-482; Albright-Mann, 302. ↩
79. Cf. Allen, 262; Metzger, 62-63; Luz, 3:226 n. 3. ↩
80. Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 174 n. 2. The fact that Shem Tov’s Even Bohan (ed. Howard, 124) includes the phrase חתן וכלה (“a groom and a bride”) in its version of the Waiting Maidens parable is yet another indication that this Hebrew version of Matthew is not the Hebrew text upon which the canonical Gospel of Matthew was based but a late translation of the Gospel of Matthew into Hebrew. For other examples indicating the unreliability of Even Bohan as a textual witness to the Gospel of Matthew, see David N. Bivin, “Has a Hebrew Gospel Been Found?” including the comments section at the end. ↩
81. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:951. ↩
82. See Dos Santos, 72. ↩
83. So Schweizer, 467. ↩
84. McNeile (361-322), Jeremias (“Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 85-86), Gundry (Matt., 498), Luz (3:227), Nolland (Matt., 1003) and Snodgrass (509) preferred this interpretation. ↩
85. Pace Jeremias (Parables, 52, 171), who maintained that the parable described an actual wedding. ↩
86. If there was no oil in the torches, they could safely be laid down while the maidens slept. ↩
87. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 1005. ↩
88. See Safrai, “Home and Family,” 758. ↩
89. See Jastrow, 351. ↩
90. See Allen, 262; Burkitt, “The Parable of the Ten Virgins,” 269. ↩
91. See A. B. Bruce, 299; Jeremias, “Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 86. Manson (Sayings, 242) supposed that the maidens were waiting for the groom to collect the bride from her parents’ home. The maidens join the groom as he approaches the home of the bride and then accompany the couple as the groom takes his bride back to his home for the wedding banquet. Cf. Luz, 3:228. Such an interpretation presumes more coming and going on the part of the maidens than the parable allows. See Nolland, Matt., 1004-1005 n. 168. ↩
92. Cf. Hagner, 2:728; Snodgrass, 513. ↩
93. In some textual witnesses the sensible maidens are mentioned prior to the foolish. See Gill, 7:302-303; A. B. Bruce, 299. But this reversal is probably a scribal “correction” meant to bring the Waiting Maidens parable in line with Houses on Rock and Sand, in which Matthew’s version mentions the sensible builder before mentioning the foolish builder. In a Hebrew translation/reconstruction of the Waiting Maidens parable Flusser placed the mention of the sensible maidens first, but since he did not discuss his reason for doing so, it is not clear whether he did this intentionally on the basis of this variant reading, or whether the reversal was an accidental slip of the pen. For this Hebrew translation/reconstruction of the Waiting Maidens parable, see Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 166-167 (in Hebrew). ↩
94. In the Pentateuch πέντε occurs as the translation of חָמֵשׁ in Gen. 5:6, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21, 23, 30; 7:20; 11:12, 32; 12:4; 14:9; 18:28 (3xx); 25:7; 45:6, 11, 22; 47:2; Exod. 21:37; 26:3 (2xx), 9, 26, 27 (2xx), 37 (2xx); 27:1 (2xx), 15, 18; 37:6 [36:38] (2xx), 16 [38:18]; 39:2 [38:25], 5 [38:28]; Lev. 26:8; 27:6; Num. 1:35[37], 37[25]; 2:15, 23; 3:47, 50; 7:17 (3xx), 23 (3xx), 29 (3xx), 35 (3xx), 41 (3xx), 47 (3xx), 53 (3xx), 59 (3xx), 65 (3xx), 71 (3xx), 77 (3xx), 83 (3xx); 11:19; 18:16; 26:45[41], 50; 31:8, 32, 37. Instances in the Pentateuch where πέντε does not occur as the translation of חָמֵשׁ are found in Gen. 46:27; Exod. 1:5; Num. 4:3. These exceptions may reflect textual variants. ↩
95. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:938. ↩
96. Jastrow (869) does not have an entry for the adjective נָבָל. ↩
97. The irregular form טפשה—the usual feminine form is טִפֶּשֶׁת (see Jastrow, 549)—does occur in a medieval Hebrew manuscript (MS B) of Ben Sira corresponding to Sir. 42:6, but a Hebrew fragment of Ben Sira from Masada dating to the first century C.E., which also contains Sir. 42:6, does not support this reading. There was also the trio הַחֵרֵשׁ וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה וְהַקָּטָן (haḥērēsh v^ehashōṭeh v^ehaqāṭān, “the deaf person and the fool and the minor”), frequently attested in rabbinic sources, but since these were deemed to lack competence and culpability, שׁוֹטֶה (shōṭeh, “fool”) is not suitable for HR. The underlying supposition of the parable is that the foolish maidens were culpable for their actions. ↩
98. We suspect that the wording of Yohanan ben Zakkai’s parable in b. Shab. 153a was, to a certain extent, influenced by the parable, quoted above, in b. Shab. 152b (e.g., כשהן מלוכלכין and שמח המלך לקראת פיקחים וכעס לקראת טיפשים). A different (more original?) form of the parable occurs in Eccl. Rab. 9:8, which we will discuss in greater detail in Comment to L8. ↩
99. See Lightfoot, 2:322-323; Gill, 7:303; Lachs, 391; Davies-Allison, 3:392; Keener, 595; France, Matt., 947 n. 51; Snodgrass, 508. ↩
100. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, 1:969; Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 166 (in Hebrew). ↩
101. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1439. ↩
102. We find חָכָם contrasted with טִפֵּשׁ in examples such as the following:

     יפה שתיקה לחכמים וקל וחומר לטפשים

     Silence is befitting of the wise [לַחֲכָמִים], and how much more the foolish [לַטִּפְּשִׁים]! (t. Pes. 9:2; Vienna MS)

     אשירה ליי כי גאה גאה מלך בשר ודם שנכנס למדינה והיו הכל מקלסין לפניו שהוא גבור ואינו אלא חלש שהוא עשיר ואינו אלא עני שהוא חכם ואינו אלא טפש שהוא רחמני ואינו אלא אכזרי שהוא דיין שהוא נאמן ואין בו אחת מכל המדות הללו

     I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphantly triumphed [Exod. 15:1]. [A parable. To what may the matter be compared? To] a king of flesh and blood who entered a province and everyone was praising him that he is mighty, but he is not but rather weak, that he is rich, but he is not but rather poor, that he is wise [חָכָם], but he is not but rather foolish [טִפֵּשׁ], that he is merciful, but he is not but rather cruel, that he is judicious and that he is trustworthy, but none of these attributes are in him. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata §1 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:174])

     תלמיד ששימש את הרב והרב אינו רוצה להשנותו, עושה כלם יי מי שעשה זה חכם סוף יעשהו טפש ומי שעשה לזה טפש סוף יעשהו חכם

     A disciple who served his master but the master is unwilling to teach him, [to this situation applies the verse] the Lord is maker of them all [Prov. 22:2]: The One who made this one wise [חָכָם] in the end will make him foolish [טִפֵּשׁ], and the One who made this one foolish [טִפֵּשׁ] in the end will make him wise [חָכָם]. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishamel, Amalek §4 [ed. Lauterbach, 2:288])

     כי השוחד יעור עיני חכמים, ואין צריך לומר עיני טפשים

     For a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise [חֲכָמִים] [Deut. 16:19], and it is not necessary to say [that it also blinds] the eyes of the foolish [טִפְּשִׁים]. (Sifre Deut. §144 [ed. Finkelstein, 199]; cf. Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 15:8 [ed. Hoffmann, 82])

     לא ארוך ולא גוץ…ולא חכם ולא טפש

     Not tall and not short…not wise [חָכָם] and not foolish [טִפֵּשׁ]. (b. Ber. 31b)

     תני ר′ חייה כנגד ארבעה בנים דיברה תורה בן חכם בן רשע בן טיפש בן שאינו יודע לשאול

     Rabbi Hiyah said [in a baraita], “The Torah spoke concerning four types of sons: a wise [חָכָם] son, a wicked son, a foolish [טִיפֵּשׁ] son, and a son that does not know how to ask….” (y. Pes. 10:4 [70b])

      ↩
103. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, 1:969; Schweizer, 467; Linnemann, The Parables of Jesus, 125; Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 166 (in Hebrew). ↩
104. Cf. Jastrow, 1208. Note that in Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s parable in b. Shab. 153a פִּקֵּחַ occurs on the lips of a first-century C.E. Hebrew speaker. Another tannaic source to use פִּקֵּחַ in contrast to טִפֵּשׁ is the following:

     ויאמר מצרים אנוסה מפני ישראל הרשעים והטפשים שבהם היו אומרים מפני דוויין וסחופין הללו אנו בורחין הפקחים שבהם היו אומרים אנוסה מפני ישראל כי יי נלחם להם במצרים אמרו מי שעשה להם נסים במצרים הוא עושה להם נסים על הים

     And Egypt said, “Let us flee from before Israel” [Exod. 14:25]. The most wicked and foolish ones [וְהַטִּפְּשִׁים] among them were saying, “From these wretches and wanderers we are running away?” The most sensible ones [הַפִּקְחִים] among them were saying, Let us flee from before Israel, for the Lord fights for them against Egypt [Exod. 14:25]. They said, “The One who did miracles for them in Egypt, he will do miracles for them on the sea.” (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, BeShallaḥ, §6 [ed. Lauterbach, 160]; cf. Mechilta de-Shimon ben Yohai 14:25 [ed. Epstein-Melamed, 65-66])

      ↩
105. The LXX translators usually rendered חָכָם as σοφός. See Dos Santos, 63. ↩
106. We reconstructed σοφός with חָכָם in Yeshua’s Thanksgiving Hymn, L7, and in Innocent Blood, L6. ↩
107. See Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 169 (in Hebrew). ↩
108. Cf. McNeile, 361; Gundry, Matt., 499. ↩
109. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:447. ↩
110. See Dos Santos, 212. ↩
111. On olive oil as a foodstuff, see Y. Feliks, “Nutrition in Biblical Israel,” Pediatric and Adolescent Endocrinology 7 (1979): 2-9, esp. 4; Magen Broshi, “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period—Introductory Notes,” Israel Museum Journal 5 (1986): 41-56, esp. 44-45. ↩
112. See Safrai, “Home and Family,” 743; Joshua N. Tilton, “‘Look at…all the trees’: Trees in the New Testament Gospels,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28823/]. ↩
113. See Shimon Applebaum, “Economic Life in Palestine” (Safrai-Stern, 2:631-700), esp. 674. ↩
114. Pace A. B. Bruce, 301; France, Matt., 497; Snodgrass, 515, 758 n. 195. ↩
115. On variants of Rabbi Yose’s saying, see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L78. ↩
116. Text according to Grunhut and Wertheimer, eds., Midrash Shir HaShirim: Printed from a Geniza Manuscript, 93. ↩
117. Although the printed editions and Kiperwasser’s critical text read, ר′ יהודה הנשיא (“Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi”), Flusser (Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 191 n. 8) noted that an important manuscript (Parma 541) reads, “Yohanan ben Zakkai,” to whom the parable is attributed elsewhere in rabbinic literature. Kohelet Zuta attributes the parable to Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi, who quoted it in the name of Yohanan ben Zakkai (Kiperwasser, 186). Similarly, Semahot de-Rabbi Hiyyah (2:1 [ed. Higger, 216]) attributes the parable to Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. And as we saw above (Comment to L5), the Babylonian Talmud (b. Shab. 153a) also attributes the parable to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. ↩
118. Noted by Donfried, “The Allegory of the Ten Virgins,” 427. According to another tradition, oil symbolizes the whole of Torah, which, of course, encompasses repentance and good deeds:

     בכל הקרבנות נמשלו דברי תורה…מקריבין שמן על גבי המזבח שנאמר סולת בלולה בשמן ונמשלה תורה בשמן שנאמר בכל עת יהיו בגדיך לבנים ושמן על ראשך אל יחסר

     To all the offerings they compared the words of Torah…. They offer oil on the altar, as it is said, fine flour mixed with oil [Lev. 2:5]. And the Torah is compared to oil, as it is said, At all times let your clothes be white and let oil on your head not be lacking [Eccl 9:8]. (Midrash Tanḥuma, Ahare Mot §16 [ed. Buber, 2:69])

      ↩
119. See Donfried, “The Allegory of the Ten Virgins,” 422, 423, 427; Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 182, 187; Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 165; Culpepper, 488-489. ↩
120. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:7. ↩
121. See Dos Santos, 167. ↩
122. See LSJ, 1913; Muraoka, Lexicon, 710. ↩
123. Cf. Safrai, “Home and Family,” 743. ↩
124. Another option we considered for GR is כּוּז (kūz), the name of an object used in the Temple for the trimming of lamps (m. Tam. 3:6, 9; 6:1; 7:2). The appearance of the כּוּז is described as follows:

     וְ^הַכּוּז דּוֹמֶה לְ[קִית]וֹן גָּדוֹל שֶׁלַּזָּהָב

     And the kūz is like a large golden ladle. (m. Tam. 3:6)

     A קִיתוֹן (qitōn) was a ladle used for scooping wine from the mixing bowl into cups (Jastrow, 1371). Because it was used for scooping rather than transporting liquids, and because its use was ceremonial, the כּוּז does not appear to be the vessel intended in the Waiting Maidens parable. ↩

125. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 499. On genitives absolute in the Gospel of Matthew as indicative of redactional activity, see LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “The Genitive Absolute in Matthew.” ↩
126. Cf., e.g., Beare, Earliest, 218 §227; Snodgrass, 516. ↩
127. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 1002. ↩ ↩
128. Jeremias (Parables, 53; Joachim Jeremias, “νύμφη, νυμφίος,” TDNT, 4:1099-1106, esp. 1104) opined that the cry at midnight was unexpected, but surely the logic of the parable presumes that the maidens fell asleep because they had been waiting for the groom (and expecting the announcement of his arrival) for a long time. His coming was hardly a surprise. Cf. Beare, Earliest, 218 §227. Nevertheless, as any child waiting for Christmas or a birthday to finally arrive knows, a long wait does not necessarily imply a delay. ↩
129. Cf. McNeile, 361; Gundry, Matt., 499; Nolland, Matt., 1006. ↩
130. On the author of Matthew’s interest in the eschatological timetable, see Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Comment to L45. ↩
131. See Jeremias, “νύμφη, νυμφίος,” 1104. Cf. Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 152. ↩
132. If Anth.’s version of Waiting Maidens had referred to a delay, perhaps it would have been worded as καὶ ἐχρόνισεν ὁ νυμφίος (kai echronisen ho nūmfios, “and the groom delayed”). ↩
133. But supposing Anth. had read, καὶ ἐχρόνισεν ὁ νυμφίος (see previous note), we might have reconstructed this as וְאֵחַר הֶחָתָן (v^e’ēḥar heḥātān, “and the groom delayed”).

     In LXX the verb χρονίζειν (chronizein, “to lengthen a stay,” “to delay”) does not occur terribly often, but when it does occur most instances are the translation of אֵחַר (’ēḥar, “delay”). See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1476. The LXX translators rendered אֵחַר more often as χρονίζειν than as any other alternative. The pi‘el verb אֵחַר occurs in MT 15xx (Gen. 24:56; 34:19; Exod. 22:28; Deut. 7:10; 23:22; Judg. 5:28; Isa. 5:11; 46:13; Hab. 2:3; Ps. 40:18; 70:6; 127:2; Prov. 23:30; Eccl. 5:3; Dan. 9:19). The LXX translators rendered eight of these instances as χρονίζειν (Gen. 34:19; Deut. 23:22; Judg. 5:28; Ps. 39[40]:18; 69[70]:6; Eccl. 5:3; Hab. 2:3; Dan. 9:19). Another instance of אֵחַר (Prov. 23:30) the LXX translators rendered with the compound ἐγχρονίζειν (enchronizein, “to continue in,” “to delay”). Since אֵחַר continued to be used in Mishnaic Hebrew, this verb would have been a reasonable option for HR. Another option for HR might be הִמְתִּין (himtin, “tarry,” “be slow”). See Jastrow, 863.

     Flusser (“The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 167 [in Hebrew]) rendered χρονίζοντος δὲ τοῦ νυμφίου as וכאשר בושש החתן לבוא (“And when the groom delayed to come”; cf. Exod. 32:1), but it appears that in Mishnaic Hebrew ב-ו-שׁ had lost the meaning “delay.” See Jastrow, 151.

     On reconstructing νυμφίος (nūmfios, “bridegroom”) with חָתָן (ḥātān, “bridegroom”), see above, Comment to L4. ↩

134. See Jeremias, Parables, 172-174; Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 158-159; Keener, 597; France, Matt., 947. Burkitt (“The Parable of the Ten Virgins,” 268), on the other hand, suggested that the bride caused the delay. ↩
135. See McNeile, 361; Donfried, “Allegory of the Ten Virgins,” 424-425; Culpepper, 488. ↩
136. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 500. ↩
137. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 499. ↩
138. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:956. ↩
139. See Dos Santos, 130. ↩
140. Cf. Jastrow, 887. ↩
141. Cf. Lightfoot, 2:323; Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 167 (in Hebrew). ↩ ↩
142. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:700. ↩
143. See Sermon’s End, Comment to L1. ↩
144. See Nolland, Matt., 1006-1007. Cf. Schweizer, 467; Gundry, Matt., 499. ↩
145. Cf. Schweizer, 46; Beare, Matt., 482; Nolland, Matt., 1006-1007. ↩
146. McNeile (362) and Goulder (438) were close to the mark in suggesting that the midnight hour and the shout in Matt. 25:6 alluded to Exod. 12:29-30, where the prediction made in Exod. 11:4-6 is fulfilled. See Michael D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974). ↩
147. See Tomson, “Parables, Fiction, and Midrash: The Ten Maidens and the Bridegroom (Matt 25:1-13),” 259. ↩
148. See Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB 7C; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977), 512. ↩
149. The indefinite phrase חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה (ḥ^atzōt laylāh, “midnight”) occurs twice more (Ps. 119:62; Job 34:20). The LXX translators rendered Job 34:20 quite freely, but the instance of חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה in the Psalms is instructive. There the LXX translators rendered חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה as μεσονύκτιον (mesonūktion, “middle of night,” “midnight”; Ps. 118[119]:62). ↩
150. We do find a few instances of חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה in rabbinic sources, for instance:

     [ויחלק עליהם לילה]…ורבנין אמ′ יוצרו חלקו, אמר הקב″ה אברהם פעל עימי בחצות אף אני פועל עם בניו בחצות הלילה, ואימתי במצרים שנ′ ויהי בחצי הלילה

     [And the night was divided against them ⟨Gen. 14:15⟩.] …and the rabbis said, “Its creator divided it. The Holy One, blessed be he, said, ‘Abraham worked with me at midnight, so I, too, will work with his sons in the middle of the night [בחצות הלילה].’ And when was this? In Egypt, as it is said, And it happened at midnight [Exod. 12:29].” (Gen. Rab. 43:3 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 1:417])

     א″ר שמעון חסידא כנור היה תלוי למעלה ממטתו של דוד וכיון שהגיע חצות לילה בא רוח צפונית ונושבת בו ומנגן מאליו

     Rabbi Shimon Hisda said, “A lute was hung above David’s bed, and as soon as midnight [חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה] arrived the north wind would come and blow on it and play upon it….” (b. Ber. 3b)

     Note, however, that both of these instances concern Scriptural verses (Gen. Rab. 43:3 citing Exod. 12:29; b. Ber. 3b concerning Ps. 119:62). ↩

151. See Hatch-Redpath, 2:784. ↩
152. See Dos Santos, 178. ↩
153. Cf. McNeile, 362. ↩
154. See Luz, 3:226 n. 2. ↩
155. On the formation of feminine plural imperatives in Mishnaic Hebrew, see
     Segal, 71 §153. ↩
156. Cf. Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L16. ↩
157. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:364. ↩
158. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:490; Dos Santos, 152. ↩
159. Cf. Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 167 (in Hebrew). ↩ ↩
160. See Jastrow, 521. ↩
161. Schweizer (466) took αἱ λαμπάδες ἡμῶν σβέννυνται to mean “Our torches will go out too soon.” Cf. Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 159; Nolland, Matt., 1007. ↩
162. See Segal, 224 §475. ↩
163. The passage we have cited is a rabbinic quotation of Ben Sira 42:9-10. In some respects it is more similar to a first-century Hebrew fragment of Ben Sira from Masada (Mas IV, 16-19) than LXX, while in other respects it more closely resembles LXX than the Masada fragment. The Masada fragment does not include the phrase שמא לא יהיו. ↩
164. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:158. ↩
165. See BDB, 593-594. ↩
166. Cf. Vermes, Religion, 113. ↩
167. See Keener, 597-598; Snodgrass, 516-517. Cf. Luz, 3:234. ↩
168. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 1008. ↩ ↩
169. Cf. Schweizer, 467; Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 155; Hagner, 2:729; Davies-Allison, 3:399; Nolland, Matt., 1007. Jeremias (“Lampades in Matthew 25:1-13,” 85) interpreted the reference to the sellers as evidence that the parable takes place in an urban rather than a rural setting. ↩
170. See A. W. Argyle, “Wedding Customs at the Time of Jesus,” Expository Times 86 (1974/1975): 214-215 (citing no evidence but drawing conclusions on what was “probably” the case) and Snodgrass, 510 (citing a parable in the minor tractate Semaḥot 8:10 in which shops are open late at night), 755 n. 157 (citing the experience of modern travelers to the Middle East who observe shops open late at night). Neither of Snodgrass’ proofs inspire much confidence. Contrast Buchanan (2:936), who maintained that “In the Middle East the shops close when the sun goes down.” Evidently, customs changed between Buchanan’s writing (1996) and Snodgrass’ (2008). Either that, or it is perilous to generalize anecdotal evidence, and doubly so to project modern experience back onto first-century parables. ↩
171. Cf. Culpepper, 488. ↩
172. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 501. On genitives absolute as characteristic of Matthean redaction, see above, Comment to L11. ↩
173. And cf. our reconstruction in Darnel Among the Wheat, L9. ↩
174. Cf. McNeile, 362-363. ↩
175. The noun γάμος occurs 9xx in Matthew (Matt. 22:2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 25:10), 0xx in Mark and 2xx in Luke (Luke 12:36; 14:8). ↩
176. See Jastrow, 859. ↩
177. The adverb ὕστερον occurs 7xx in Matt. (Matt. 4:2; 21:29, 32, 37; 22:27; 25:11; 26:60), 1x in the spurious ending of Mark (Mark 16:14) and 1x in Luke (Luke 20:32). ↩
178. On the author of Matthew’s redactional use of the adverb ὕστερον, see Yeshua’s Testing, Comment to L20. ↩
179. See Stephanie L. Black, “The Historic Present in Matthew: Beyond Speech Margins,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 120-139. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 1009. Pace Jeremias (Parables, 175), who regarded the use of the historical present as “evidence of early tradition.” ↩
180. We discussed the author of Luke’s redactional use of καί in the sense of “also” in Sign-Seeking Generation, Comment to L42-43. ↩
181. The table below shows all of the instances of λοιπός in the Gospel of Matthew and the synoptic parallels (if any):

     Matt. 22:6 DT (cf. Luke 14:21) Matt. 25:11 U Matt. 26:45 [adv.] TT = Mark 14:41 (cf. Luke 22:[–]) Matt. 27:49 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 15:36) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; Lk-Mk = Lukan-Markan pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [–] = no corresponding word and/or verse

      ↩
182. Cf. A. B. Bruce, 300. ↩
183. See Houses on Rock and Sand, Comment to L9-20, and Closed Door, Comment to L4-15. ↩
184. On reconstructing κρούειν with הִרְתִּיק, see Friend in Need, Comment to L25. ↩
185. Cf. Gundry, Matt., 501. ↩
186. On the double vocative as the product of Matthean-cross pollination with Houses on Rock and Sand/Closed Door, see Closed Door, Comment to L10. ↩
187. Cf. Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 179; Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 163; Gundry, Matt., 501. ↩
188. See Flusser, “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 167 (in Hebrew). ↩
189. Cf. Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 191 n. 1. ↩
190. Cf. LHNS, 179 §227. ↩
191. In John’s Gospel, too, ἀμήν appears exclusively on the lips of Jesus. ↩
192. See Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 191 n. 12. Cf. Luz, 3:235. ↩
193. See Snodgrass, 510. ↩
194. See Jeremias, Parables, 175; B. Green, 205; Linnemann, The Parables of Jesus, 126; Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 160. Cf. Keener, 598; France, Matt., 950. ↩
195. Cf. Flusser’s translation/reconstruction in his “The Parables of Jesus and the Parables in Rabbinic Literature,” 167 (in Hebrew). ↩
196. Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 188, 191 n. 12. ↩
197. Cf. Luz, 3:234 (“They [i.e., the characters in the parable—DNB and JNT) do so because that is what the story requires”). ↩
198. This rule does not always hold true, however. Sometimes parables were recycled to illustrate points for which they were not originally intended. When that happened, a parable could have superfluous details that no longer served the secondary purpose to which the parable was put. ↩
199. See Gundry, Matt., 502. ↩
200. See Allen, 263; Bultmann, 176; Kilpatrick, 32; Bundy, 474 §387; Schweizer, 466; Gundry, Matt., 502; Catchpole, 56. ↩
201. See McNeile, 363; Kilpatrick, 76; Bundy, 474 §387; Jeremias, Parables, 52; Beare, Earliest, 218 §227; Schweizer, 466; Lambrecht, Once More Astonished, 157; Catchpole, 57; France, Matt., 948. Cf. Manson, Sayings, 243. ↩
202. Pace Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, 178, 180. Bultmann (176) and Snodgrass (517) concluded that Matt. 25:13 does fit the message of the parable. ↩
203. Did. 16:1 may also have played a role in the composition of Matt. 25:13. ↩

204. Waiting Maidens parable
     Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
     τότε ὁμοιωθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν δέκα παρθένοις αἵτινες λαβοῦσα τὰς λαμπάδας ἑαυτῶν ἐξῆλθον εἰς ὑπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου πέντε δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἦσαν μωραὶ καὶ πέντε φρόνιμοι αἱ γὰρ μωραὶ λαβοῦσαι τὰς λαμπάδας αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔλαβον μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν ἔλαιον αἱ δὲ φρόνιμοι ἔλαβον ἔλαιον ἐν τοῖς ἀγγείοις μετὰ τῶν λαμπάδων ἑαυτῶν χρονίζοντος δὲ τοῦ νυμφίου ἐνύσταξαν πᾶσαι καὶ ἐκάθευδον μέσης δὲ νυκτὸς κραυγὴ ἐγένετο ἰδοὺ ὁ νυμφίος ἐξέρχεσθε εἰς ἀπάντησιν τότε ἠγέρθησαν πᾶσαι αἱ παρθένοι ἐκεῖναι καὶ ἐκόσμησαν τὰς λαμπάδας ἑαυτῶν αἱ δὲ μωραὶ ταῖς φρονίμοις εἶπαν δότε ἡμῖν ἐκ τοῦ ἐλαίου ὑμῶν ὅτι αἱ λαμπάδες ἡμῶν σβέννυνται ἀπεκρίθησαν δὲ αἱ φρόνιμοι λέγουσαι μήποτε οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν πορεύεσθε μᾶλλον πρὸς τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράσατε ἑαυταῖς ἀπερχομένων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀγοράσαι ἦλθεν ὁ νυμφίος καὶ αἱ ἕτοιμοι εἰσῆλθον μετ’ αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς γάμους καὶ ἐκλείσθη ἡ θύρα ὕστερον δὲ ἔρχονται καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ παρθένοι λέγουσαι κύριε κύριε ἄνοιξον ἡμῖν ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν οὐκ οἶδα ὑμᾶς γρηγορεῖτε οὖν ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἡμέραν οὐδὲ τὴν ὥραν		[εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς παραβολὴν λέγων τίνι ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὅμοιος ὅμοιός ἐστιν] δέκα παρθένοις αἵτινες λαβοῦσαι λαμπάδας ἐξῆλθον εἰς ὑπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου πέντε ἐξ αὐτῶν ἦσαν μωραὶ καὶ πέντε ἐξ αὐτῶν ἦσαν φρόνιμοι αἱ μωραὶ οὐκ ἔλαβον ἔλαιον αἱ δὲ φρόνιμοι ἔλαβον ἔλαιον ἐν τοῖς ἀγγείοις καὶ ἐνύσταξαν πᾶσαι καὶ ἐκάθευδον μέσης δὲ νυκτὸς κραυγὴ ἐγένετο ἰδοὺ ὁ νυμφίος ἐξέρχεσθε εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἠγέρθησαν πᾶσαι αἱ παρθένοι ἐκεῖναι καὶ ἐκόσμησαν τὰς λαμπάδας καὶ εἶπαν αἱ μωραὶ ταῖς φρονίμοις δότε ἡμῖν ἐκ τοῦ ἐλαίου ὑμῶν ἀπεκρίθησαν δὲ αἱ φρόνιμοι λέγουσαι μήποτε οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν πορεύεσθε μᾶλλον πρὸς τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράσατε καὶ ἀπῆλθον καὶ ἦλθεν ὁ νυμφίος καὶ αἱ παρθένοι αἱ φρόνιμοι εἰσῆλθον μετ’ αὐτοῦ [εἰς τοὺς γάμους] καὶ ἐκλείσθη ἡ θύρα καὶ ἦλθον αἱ παρθένοι αἱ μωραὶ [καὶ ἤρξαντο ἔξω ἑστάναι καὶ κρούειν τὴν θύραν] λέγουσαι κύριε ἄνοιξον ἡμῖν καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν οὐκ οἶδα ὑμᾶς
     Total Words:	170	Total Words:	126 [150]
     Total Words Identical to Anth.:	109 [112]	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	109 [112]
     Percentage Identical to Anth.:	64.12 [65.88]%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	86.51 [74.67]%

      ↩

205. Perhaps this is one reason why Martin (Syntax 1, 115 no. 37; Syntax 2, 50 no. 29) did not find Waiting Maidens to be more like “translation” Greek. ↩
206. Cf. Bundy, 474 §387. ↩