Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Drury on the lost sheep and the lost coin

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    I had just been admiring Drury because he is among the few who take the Parable of the Vineyard as a Markan composition, and he even casts doubt on the
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 22, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I had just been admiring Drury because he is among the few who take the
      Parable of the Vineyard as a Markan composition, and he even casts doubt on
      the authenticity of the Parable of the Sower, which seems somewhat unusual
      even among critical scholars. (Both of these parables look like Markan
      compositions because they so closely match the author's aims.)

      Then I (re-)read one of his comments on the lost sheep and lost coin ("The
      Parables in the Gospels", p.141). He points out that Luke declares the "one
      sinner who repents" to be the point of these parables. Yet sheep and coins
      can't repent, so there appears to be a mismatch, and "Such oversight is,
      according to the normal practice of gospel criticism, a sign of editing".

      So far, so good. But then Drury proceeds to claim that therefore it is
      unlikely that Luke has a primitive Q version here. His logic appears to be
      faulty. On the contrary, the oversight strongly suggests that Luke was
      adapting more primitive sayings which didn't quite fit in with the message
      he wanted to convey.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Derek Leman
      Since when is it a requirement of parables that the analogies be perfect (i.e., lost coins repenting)? How is it a sign of editing? If that were so, most
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 22, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Since when is it a requirement of parables that the analogies be perfect (i.e., lost coins repenting)? How is it a sign of editing? If that were so, most parables (biblical and rabbinic) would have to be regarded as reworked by later editors. But maybe the main point of the lost coin/sheep is not the repenting but the finding. Maybe the main analogy is: owner finds lost sheep ---> God finds lost sinner.

        Derek Leman
        Atlanta, GA








        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ken Olson
        ... Then I (re-)read one of his comments on the lost sheep and lost coin ( The Parables in the Gospels , p.141). He points out that Luke declares the one
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 22, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Ron Price wrote:

          >>I had just been admiring Drury... [snipped}

























          Then I (re-)read one of his comments on the lost sheep and lost coin ("The

          Parables in the Gospels", p.141). He points out that Luke declares the "one

          sinner who repents" to be the point of these parables. Yet sheep and coins

          can't repent, so there appears to be a mismatch, and "Such oversight is,

          according to the normal practice of gospel criticism, a sign of editing".

          So far, so good.<<

          I too admire Drury's work.

          >>But then Drury proceeds to claim that therefore it is

          unlikely that Luke has a primitive Q version here. His logic appears to be

          faulty.<<

          It appears faulty only if you take Drury's word "here" to refer to the contents of the parables. I take it refer to the added dimension of repentance in Lk. 15.10. The theme of rejoicing is already found in Luke's Matthean source (Mt. 18.13). Luke has interpreted this to mean rejoicing *over repentance*, which is not explicit in Matthew's lost sheep or Luke's lost sheep or lost coin.

          >>On the contrary, the oversight strongly suggests that Luke was

          adapting more primitive sayings which didn't quite fit in with the message

          he wanted to convey.<<

          This is Drury's argument. In the case of the lost sheep, Drury is arguing that Luke is adapting a more primitive saying from Matthew. Though he doesn't treat it in much detail, Drury thinks the lost coin is *also* an adaptation of Matthew's lost sheep, again emphasizing the theme of rejoicing but without (yet) adding the element of repentance, which will come in the following parable about the Prodigal Son.

          You could argue that if Luke were composing the lost coin from Matthew's lost sheep, he would have added the element of repentance there (and maybe in the lost sheep as well) to set the stage for the prodigal son, or that he wouldn't have chosen to tell a parable about a coin because it couldn't exhibit repentance. But I think that's an indecisive argument. We could argue Luke would have wanted to anticipate the theme of repentance found in Prodigal Son, but equally well (or better) that he saved his rhetorical punch for the third and best parable in the sequence.

          Best wishes,

          Ken

          Ken Olson
          PhD Cand. Religion
          Duke University







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Chuck Jones
          Dr. Crossan differentiates between an original saying from Jesus and the way the gospellers suggest a meaning for their readers by (1) the other teachings they
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 22, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Dr. Crossan differentiates between an original saying from Jesus and the way the gospellers suggest a meaning for their readers by (1) the other teachings they place it near and (2) introductory and concluding phrases such as "He said this so that they would...." or to those who thought blahblahblah he said this."  Crossan calls the saying the picture and (1) and (2) above the frame.

            Seems to me that the elaborateness of the frame says nothing intrinsically about the primitivity of the picture.  Although if the same interpretation is tied to the saying across the synoptics, John, Thomas, etc., it would suggest the frame was added early on.

            Re. the lost sheep, I would suggest that the saying stood frameless for quite a while since Mt and Lk place it in different frames; i.e., interpret its meaning differently.

            Chuck

            Rev. Chuck Jones
            Atlanta, Georgia


            ________________________________
            From: Ronald Price <ron-price@...>
            To: Synoptic-L <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 7:02 AM
            Subject: [Synoptic-L] Drury on the lost sheep and the lost coin


             
            I had just been admiring Drury because he is among the few who take the
            Parable of the Vineyard as a Markan composition, and he even casts doubt on
            the authenticity of the Parable of the Sower, which seems somewhat unusual
            even among critical scholars. (Both of these parables look like Markan
            compositions because they so closely match the author's aims.)

            Then I (re-)read one of his comments on the lost sheep and lost coin ("The
            Parables in the Gospels", p.141). He points out that Luke declares the "one
            sinner who repents" to be the point of these parables. Yet sheep and coins
            can't repent, so there appears to be a mismatch, and "Such oversight is,
            according to the normal practice of gospel criticism, a sign of editing".

            So far, so good. But then Drury proceeds to claim that therefore it is
            unlikely that Luke has a primitive Q version here. His logic appears to be
            faulty. On the contrary, the oversight strongly suggests that Luke was
            adapting more primitive sayings which didn't quite fit in with the message
            he wanted to convey.

            Ron Price,

            Derbyshire, UK

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Ronald Price
            ... Ken, Thanks for this. Or perhaps it refers to the whole Lukan parable, which equally supports your explanation. ... Yes. But to my mind this assessment is
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 22, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              On 22/06/2011 15:14, "Ken Olson" <kenolson101@...> wrote:

              >>> >>But then Drury proceeds to claim that therefore it is
              >>
              >> unlikely that Luke has a primitive Q version here. His logic appears to be
              >>
              >> faulty.<<
              >>
              > It appears faulty only if you take Drury's word "here" to refer to the
              > contents of the parables. I take it refer to the added dimension of
              > repentance in Lk. 15.10.
              >
              Ken,

              Thanks for this. Or perhaps it refers to the whole Lukan parable, which
              equally supports your explanation.

              > Drury thinks the lost coin is *also* an adaptation of Matthew's lost sheep,
              >
              Yes. But to my mind this assessment is not entirely satisfactory, for it
              suggests that the man/woman pairing in the sheep and coin parables never
              existed as a unit, as the similar mustard/yeast and bed/grinding-corn
              pairings seems to have done.

              Ron Price,

              Derbyshire, UK

              http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • E Bruce Brooks
              To: Synoptic (CC: GPG) On: Three Parables in Lk 15 These have come up recently via Drury s comment, he being an enthusiast of the Goulder analysis, and for
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 23, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                To: Synoptic (CC: GPG)
                On: Three Parables in Lk 15

                These have come up recently via Drury's comment, he being an enthusiast of
                the Goulder analysis, and for that matter, interesting in his own right. I
                have been recently pursuing another tack: that the material common to Mt and
                Lk is not unidirectional (as MG asserts at some length), but bidirectional,
                but that this does not imply an outside source, since in this scenario Lk
                exists in at least two forms, one pre-Matthean and seen by Mt (Lk A), and
                the other post-Matthean and reacting to Mt (Lk B). I have recently argued
                for the Sermon on the Plain part of this thesis at SBL/NE; see at:

                http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/current/sbl.html

                The other big stretch which such a proposal has to handle satisfactorily is
                the Lukan Travel Narrative (this was already obvious in the discussion
                following my SBL 2006 talk on Luke), and the Lk 15 question, which pops up
                in the midst of that narrative, gives a chance to consider that material
                also. I am here accepting that chance. Klyne Snodgrass, whose helpful book
                on the Parables I continue to appreciate, and who has a good chapter on the
                structure of Lk 15, has said of these three Lostness parables, "What is
                demonstrable is how this section of Luke achieves its rhetorical effect. At
                least ch15, if not the whole of 14:1-=17:10, is focused on the gospel of the
                outcasts. This chapter is the heart of Luke's travel narrative, in which he
                presents the bulk of Jesus's teaching, and for that matter, the heart of his
                whole Gospel" (p94). I think that is essentially correct. Notice the
                startling assumption that Luke in fact HAS a Gospel; that is already a major
                discovery. Going a bit further, I think it can be shown that much of this
                material is consonant with the Gospel of the Poor (that is, the
                proto-Ebionite) Gospel which I have proposed that Luke is expounding in the
                Sermon on the Plain, and though it may not be the only heart of Luke A, it
                is at any rate a fitting companion to the heart that beats in the Sermon. We
                will see some specific echoes as we go along.

                Herewith the exposition. I take things as briefly as possible, in their
                Lukan order.

                Lk 14:1-6 Healing on the Sabbath, at the house of a Pharisee. Makes the
                standard Jesus argument (see Mk) that mercy is in keeping with the Sabbath.
                Derived from the original Jesus teaching, and part of Lk A. Not copied into
                Mt. Serves as a sort of preface to the next, and more original piece:

                Lk 14:7-14, On Humility. Take the lower place. This too is a Jesus doctrine
                (see again Mk), but developed characteristically by Lk. As so developed, it
                not only preaches humility, it specifically preaches the strange doctrine of
                the Lukan Sermon, namely that only unrequited good accumulates a positive
                credit balance in Heaven. The giveaway is in the final line: "But when you
                give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will
                be blessed, *because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the
                resurrection of the just.* A very clear statement of things that are more
                implicit, indeed gnomic, in the Lukan Sermon. Luke A. Not in Mt, and no
                wonder. He hated the whole theory, as can be seen by his transmogrification
                of the Sermon. With Matthew, money is one of the Good Things.

                Lk 14:15-24. The Great Supper. Those of us who love to make merry with MG at
                the ludicrous mess (MG: "disaster," 2/680) which Luke 19:11-27 has made of
                Matthew's Parable of the Talents (Mt 25:14-30), precisely by introducing an
                unnecessary King into the story; those who pop corn and open beer and invite
                the neighbors in to share the joke, and fully justified they are, should in
                fairness note the equal disaster which Mt has made by introducing a King
                into Lk's story of the Great Supper. MG here (2/588-593) argues for a Mt >
                Lk directionality chiefly from the Lukan quality of the Lukan version, but
                this is equally an argument for adaptation or origination. Beare (Matthew,
                ap Mt 22:1-14, and compare p210f of Beare's very human little Synoptic
                commentary, Earliest Records) says of the Matthean half of this pair, "It
                might be remarked that we can hardly imagine that Luke has found this
                parable in Matthew and has pared it down in this fashion." Goulder (1989)
                might perhaps have done well to take this 1981 opinion (or the 1962 one of
                Earliest Records) into account, but it seems that the Britikers do not waste
                much reading time on the Amerikaners' stuff. Tsk.

                At any rate, for purposes of the present survey, Beare is intuitively right,
                whether in 1962 or in 1981, and directionally, we have Lk > Mt. Given an
                original Lukan position of this story, we also have a very consistent
                thematic sequence in Lk. "Jesus" is still at dinner with the Pharisees, as
                in the preceding two passages, and one of them says, "Blessed is he who
                shall eat bread in the Kingdom of God!" To which Jesus replies with what
                amounts to a rebuke of smug confidence: Those who were originally invited
                (the Jerusalem authorities, those with spiritual custody of Israel) have
                shied away from their real responsibilities, they have not responded to
                God's invitation, and others, the poor and scruffy of this earth, will be
                recruited to replace them. This is exactly the moral of the Parable of the
                Kingdom in Mk; it thus breaks no new doctrinal ground, but rather affirms in
                a new way an old established Jesus tradition doctrine. As Confucius is once
                made to say, one who can warm up the old is fit to be a teacher. On the
                strength of the material in this section, Luke qualifies nicely.

                Lk 14:25-35. He who loves father and mother more than me. Here, though, we
                seem to have a thematic interruption. The inclusion of the poor at the
                Banquet (preceding) leads naturally to Lk 15:1-10 (next paragraph), where
                the sinners are crowding around to hear Jesus, and the Pharisees are
                objecting to this. That is, they are objecting to Jesus living out the
                parable which he has just told them.

                In between, in Lk 14:24-35, comes this bit on discipleship, which just
                because it is a thematic interruption, is probably a later intrusion,
                suggesting Mt > Lk. In rounding off the intrusion, the author of Luke B has
                done his best to restore continuity by tacking on the enigmatic Markan salt
                saying at the end, which at least assumes a modicum of meaning in this new
                context: Salt has first claim on salting things, but if it has lost its
                saltness, it becomes useless. That is: The Temple authorities, surprisingly,
                and through dereliction of their spiritual duty, are not going to be
                included in the Kingdom. Thematically, if no longer situationally, this
                serves to reconnect the intrusive 14:25-35 with what follows. Namely: the
                Lost Sheep.

                Lk 15:1-7. The Lost Sheep. Narratively consecutive in Lk (with Lk 14:15-24,
                not with what immediately precedes), not so much so in Mt (18:12-14). Apart
                from the respective settings, there is little to judge between the two
                stories as far as directionality indicators go. The thematic sequence in Lk
                is sufficiently convincing as an original sequence, though Mt has its own
                connections, via the theme of "little ones." It is characteristic of Mt that
                he talks to disciples (see Paradigm 2/558), whereas Lk, also
                characteristically (allowing for the fact that Lk is not one text but three,
                each with its own character) thinks of repentance (Paradigm 2/615). This is
                a rather useful and nicely observed contrast. There is no strong reason to
                assume Mt > Lk here, and I assume instead Lk > Mt, since it works better
                with what comes next, which is two Lukan expansions of a theme which is
                derived from the same Jesus tradition that Luke everywhere exemplifies.

                Lk 15:8-10. The Lost Coin. An urban counterpart of the preceding, perhaps
                omitted in Mt because it portrays a woman to whom the loss of a modest coin
                is a serious matter. That sort of precarious existence makes Mt
                uncomfortable. In general, in terms of Sitz im Leben, these two Lostness
                parables could have arisen in two ways: (1) to explain and justify Jesus's
                effort to preach to the "lost sheep" of Israel, who as things then stood
                were not scheduled to be saved, or (2) to justify the reception of an erring
                brother (another kind of "lost sheep") back into the community of the saved.
                The erring brother who repents and is forgiven and becomes once again part
                of the fellowship is a problem dealt with throughout the 1c literature, but
                with a difference: in James (early) it is a major virtue to have regained an
                erring brother; by the late 1c (Jude, 2Pt) it is virtually forbidden. This
                reflects the gradual hardening of doctrinal lines, and the sense that those
                who cross back again into the Other Side have committed an irredeemable
                offense. The Domitian persecution of the early 90's probably had something
                to do with that hardening. In any case, that was not the view of Jesus, and
                it was not the view of James, and it is not the view of Luke. The first
                category, option (1), is original Jesus; the second, option (2), probably
                arose in the early church. How then shall we classify these Parables?

                These first two Lostness parables come easily enough under heading (1),
                precisely as Luke tells us in labeling them that way. But then:

                Lk 15:11-22. The Prodigal Son. The previous two little parables focused on
                the joy of the one who recovers the lost, that is, the joy in heaven over
                the accession of the formerly lost sinner. Drury remarks that the theme of
                repentance does not fit these stories very well, and he is right, meaning
                that repentance is not the theme of these stories. They are not told from
                the point of view of the one turning to God, but from the point of view of
                God. The gladness of God, and in the background, the salvation of all, not
                just part, of Israel, is the theme of these stories, or at any rate its
                ancestor. With the Prodigal Son, we are instead given a long and close look
                at the resentment of the previously saved, at having this skunk and wastrel
                reintroduced, and with fanfare and feasting, into the family circle. The
                father explains. He explains by reassuring the good son that his position,
                and indeed his possession, is not threatened. It seems to me that Luke is
                here extending the lostness theme into category (2). In so doing, he is
                going a step beyond James (who ended by praising the one who recoverts the
                erring brother) and asking, in a practical way, will that erring brother
                really be welcome in his former community? I think that the third of these
                Lostness parables, which goes far beyond the previous two, is Luke's answer
                to this cognate question. In any case, there is no question that he got it
                from Mt (who would have been disgusted by the whole idea of wasting capital,
                and living in poverty, and worst of all, of being rewarded for living in
                poverty). So the current hypothesis seems to be holding.

                6:1-13. The Unjust Steward. Moving right along, we come to this Parable,
                also unique to Lk and thus not copied from Mt; our only question is whether
                it is Lk A or Lk B. The last lines of Luke's parables are often helpful,
                since Luke tends to tell us what he means, and this parable closes with the
                thought that God and Wealth are incompatible. This is again Luke's radical
                poverty ethic, most egregiously worked out in the Lazarus parable, but
                sufficiently visible here also (sufficiently, that is, for those who know
                the Chinese prototype of this parable, and are not distracted by the seeming
                anomaly of "Jesus" praising what seems to be dishonest bookkeeping. "Jesus"
                in the story sufficiently deals with this: we should make our choices,
                either for this world or the next, with as much savvy as the steward showed.
                Like him, we cannot keep our present situation, we can only store up credits
                for the next situation. All quite in keeping with the bookkeeping of the
                Lukan Sermon, whose strangeness I tried to expound in the recent and
                abovementioned talk. Luke A.

                Lk 16:14-15. The Pharisees' Love of Money. This is a tag ending of the
                preceding, and reinforces the above interpretation, as well as bringing in
                the related theme of the exalted vs the humble, and the reversal to be
                expected in the transition to the next world. Luke A.

                Lk 16:16-18. John and Divorce, or so my Synopsis says, in trying to make
                sense of a seemingly mixed bag of three brief things. The emphasis on
                strictness about divorce in the third saying (16:18) goes well enough with
                John in the first (16:16), since it will be remembered (or would have been
                remembered by Luke's audience) that John's uncompromising but impolitic
                strictness about divorce had gotten him killed. Just why Luke put these
                things together at just this point I can't at this moment suggest (can
                anybody?), but they were in Luke A, as can be seen by the fact that Mt
                borrowed two of them to stick in at different places in his gaudy remake of
                Luke's Sermon on the Plain. The third of them he put in a different
                location.

                Lk 16:19-31. Dives and Lazarus. This is the quintessential Luke A parable,
                the one in which the absolute virtue of poverty and the absolute vice of
                wealth is most clearly set forth. Luke A. Except, of course, that the final
                paragraph (16:27-31), the second request of Dives, is a Luke C addition,
                designed to reinforce the theme that the Jews (not the rich; the point of
                the parable has here changed) have refused to repent, "even though one come
                to them risen from the dead."

                I will stop here. I suggest that the hypothesis of Luke A, a primitive
                Christian centered text expounding a curious doctrine derived from Jesus'
                teaching in Mark, modified by post-Jesus teaching in James, and going a step
                beyond James in the theology of poverty, has not been refuted, and that
                where the thematic texture of Luke A seems to have been interrupted, there
                are reasons to think that we have an interference either from Matthew
                (reflected in Luke B) or from the later complete severance of Jews and
                Christians (reflected in Acts II and its correlate, Luke C). With the
                exception of these two instances of later interference, the material here
                considered seems to be a long stretch of original Luke teaching, consonant
                with and further illustrating the points more briefly made in the Sermon on
                the Plain.

                Respectfully submitted,

                E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
              • Ken Olson
                E. Bruce Brooks wrote: for purposes of the present survey, Beare is intuitively right Bruce, The purposes of your survey are unknown to me, but I think
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 23, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  E. Bruce Brooks wrote: "for
                  purposes of the present survey, Beare is intuitively right"

                  Bruce,

                  The purposes of your survey are unknown to me, but I think Beare's intuition is based on an oversimplification of the evidence that needs to be considered. Perhaps Beare (1981) ought to have taken Goulder (1974:415-418) into account, and so should you, along with Drury (1989:97-100). Beare compares only Matthew and Luke's versions of the Great Supper; he does not consider the parallels between Matthew's Great Supper and the Wicked Tenants which immediately precedes it in Matthew's text. If we are to match intuitions, mine tell me the incongruities in Matthew's Great Supper are far more explicable on the hypothesis that Matthew is recasting the Wicked Tenants alone than that he saw the Great Dinner in something close to Luke's form and order and decided to embroider it with material from and place it after his own Wicked Tenants. In effect, Matthew's Supper is the middle term between Wicked Tenants and Luke's Supper. I find it more plausible to think that Luke noticed the incongruity of killing servants and wiping out a city over a dinner invitation and so rewrote the story extensively than that Matthew saw something like Luke's version of Great Supper and saw it as the vehicle with which to explicate the destruction of Jerusalem suggested by the Wicked Tenants. In any event, I don't think any treatment of Goulder's views on the directionality of the Great Supper that fails to take his views on the Wicked Tenants into account can be convincing.

                  Best wishes,

                  Ken

                  Ken Olson
                  PhD Cand.
                  Duke University
                  .



































                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic (Ken Olson) / Cc: GPG Ken: The purposes of your survey are unknown to me, Bruce: I thought it was clearly stated, but I can repeat it. I am
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 23, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Synoptic (Ken Olson) / Cc: GPG

                    Ken: The purposes of your survey are unknown to me,

                    Bruce: I thought it was clearly stated, but I can repeat it. I am
                    experimenting with a hypothesis: that there are two relevant states of Luke:
                    One (Luke A) prior to Matthew and a source for Matthew, thus accounting for
                    the Lk > Mt directionalities within the socalled Double Tradition material,
                    and Another (Luke B) posterior to and drawing on Matthew, thus accounting
                    for the Mt > Lk directionalities in the same material. Is there any reason,
                    apart from the present instances, to posit such a situation? Yes, several.
                    For instance: Not usually included in "Double Tradition" list are the
                    respective Birth stories, but I submit that it is intuitively obvious that
                    (a) the Lk one is a gaudy rewrite and remake of the Mt one, and that (b) it
                    overrides what looks an awful lot like the original beginning of Lk at Lk
                    3:1, with its elaborate opening scene-setting synchronism. So also with the
                    respective Jesus genealogies; the Lukan one is a universalist expansion of
                    the narrowly Abrahamic Matthean one. Here, then, is one large chunk of
                    probable Mt > Lk material, completely apart from the stories here being
                    discussed. But notice that it requires the assumption of a prior Luke
                    (beginning at Lk 3:1), to which the Matthew rewrites were added at some
                    later time; that is, it requires two compositional states of Luke. The
                    purpose of the experiment is to see if this Luke A/B hypothesis holds on,
                    and can explain, material other than that on which it was founded. Another
                    such foundation text is the Lukan Sermon, and I believe I provided the
                    complete text and handout of my paper on the Lukan Sermon, though perhaps
                    that link did not come across on all browsers. That, anyway, is the context.

                    Ken: . . .but I think Beare's intuition is based on an oversimplification of
                    the evidence that needs to be considered. Perhaps Beare (1981) ought to
                    have taken Goulder (1974:415-418) into account, and so should you, along
                    with Drury (1989:97-100). Beare compares only Matthew and Luke's versions of
                    the Great Supper; he does not consider the parallels between Matthew's Great
                    Supper and the Wicked Tenants which immediately precedes it in Matthew's
                    text. If we are to match intuitions, mine tell me the incongruities in
                    Matthew's Great Supper are far more explicable on the hypothesis that
                    Matthew is recasting the Wicked Tenants alone than that he saw the Great
                    Dinner in something close to Luke's form and order and decided to embroider
                    it with material from and place it after his own Wicked Tenants.

                    Bruce: Well said, up to a point. It is very likely that Matthew, in doing
                    his version of the Dinner story keeps in mind what he has been doing
                    immediately preceding. Luke too (as I mentioned very briefly at a few points
                    in my previous exposition) is also not writing his stories in a personal
                    vacuum; rather, he is aware of what he has done, and taught, elsewhere in
                    his work, including in the immediately preceding passage. Good. But notice
                    that it is still agreed that Matthew's Dinner is NOT A PRIMARY STORY:
                    Matthew got it from somewhere, and from somewhere simpler (as Ken says, " he
                    saw the Great Dinner in something close to Luke's form"), and to that
                    simpler story, he then added his own (thematically characteristic but
                    narratively disastrous) royal element. The question which we now have to
                    decide is, where did Matthew get the basic Dinner story? An outside source
                    which was very like Luke ("something close to Luke's form," as Ken puts it),
                    or Luke himself? I am exploring the latter possibility, and so far, it seems
                    to be working; at any rate, there is nothing so far which seems to refute
                    it. The key agreement is that Matthew's story is based on something like
                    Luke's story.

                    Ken: In effect, Matthew's Supper is the middle term between Wicked Tenants
                    and Luke's Supper.

                    Bruce: I don't find "middle term" to be a helpful label. And why not?
                    Because it can easily mean different things. It can mean "common ground, and
                    thus probable common (C) source, of B and D," thus implying C > B, D. But it
                    can just as easily mean "intermediate between B and D," which would imply
                    the quite different sequence B > C > D. These two possibilities are highly
                    inequivalent, and it is analytically awkward to have the same name for them.

                    Ken: I find it more plausible to think that Luke noticed the incongruity of
                    killing servants and wiping out a city over a dinner invitation and so
                    rewrote the story extensively than that Matthew saw something like Luke's
                    version of Great Supper and saw it as the vehicle with which to explicate
                    the destruction of Jerusalem suggested by the Wicked Tenants.

                    Bruce: The Luke scenario here does not convince. As between the two Dinner
                    Stories, the Lukan one is simple and not contorted, and the Matthean one is
                    complex and contorted. We agree that the Matthean story could not plausibly
                    have been written de novo; it must be a mixture, and a mixture for which
                    Matthew the author is responsible. Luke, had he encountered the story for
                    the first time in Matthew, would surely have found it incongruous, just as
                    any modern reader must. But HOW DID THE STORY GET THAT WAY? What seems to be
                    agreed is that it got that way by mixing a theme known to be Matthean
                    (kinds) with a simple story very like Luke's. Then the mixture is due to
                    Matthew. So far all suggestions coincide. The choice, then, as far as I can
                    see, is between Matthew's combination of Luke's story with his own Royal
                    motif (my suggestion) and Luke's simplification of a complex story which he
                    first encountered in Matthew (Goulder's explanation), a story which Matthew
                    had gotten in the first place from an unknown source which already had the
                    story in very much its Lukan form (Ken's scenario). It seems to me that the
                    hypothesis of an outside but nonLukan source for Matthew is here doing
                    unnecessary work, and that it also requires the acceptance of an extremely
                    close coincidence. If Matthew got it from a literal outside source S, then
                    so, in the most readily imaginable situation, did Luke (this is in effect
                    the Q hypothsis). If Matthew got it from Luke, then, well, then he did (this
                    is provided for in the Luke A/B hypothesis, as currently developed). Ken's
                    proposal gives us instead a choice between (a) S > Mt > Lk, in which, by a
                    colossal coincidence, S and Lk are virtually indistinguishable, or (b) Lk >
                    Mt, with added elements from the standard Matthean kit. So far, I am
                    inclined to prefer the second of these scenarios.

                    Is there a real reason not to?

                    E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                  • Ken Olson
                    Bruce, ... incongruities in Matthew s Great Supper are far more explicable on the hypothesis that Matthew is recasting the Wicked Tenants alone than that he
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 24, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Bruce,

                      I was initially baffled by your response, as it did not seem to be interacting with what I was arguing about the necessity of taking Wicked Tenants into consideration and also attributed to me a position I was attributing to you. After re-reading your post and mine, I think I may not have been sufficiently clear and the problem lies mostly in the following sentence:

                      >> If we are to match intuitions, mine tell me the
                      incongruities in Matthew's Great Supper are far more explicable on the
                      hypothesis that Matthew is recasting the Wicked Tenants alone than that
                      he saw the Great Dinner in something close to Luke's form and order and
                      decided to embroider it with material from and place it after his own
                      Wicked Tenants. >>

                      Perhaps I should have said:

                      >>The incongruities in Matthew's Great Supper are far more explicable on the hypothesis that [Matthew is recasting the Wicked Tenants *alone* (so Goulder, Drury)]

                      than

                      [that he saw the parable in Luke's form and order (Brooks) or something close to it (Beare) and decided to embroider it with material from and place it after his own Wicked Tenants].<<

                      Now, granted you and Beare don't discuss the relationship between Matthew's Supper and the Wicked Tenants much (Beare does comment on the initial frame), but the point of my post is I think you need to and would have to argue something along the lines I attribute to your theories here.

                      and when I said: >>In effect, Matthew's Supper is the middle term between
                      Wicked Tenants and Luke's Supper.<<

                      I used "middle term" advisedly, following Sanders, because it describes a phenomenon *without* making a source-critical judgment on it. Where B is the middle term between A and C, this could be because B combined A and C, B used A and was used by C, or A and C used B. In this case, I am arguing that my intuition tells me that the trajectory Wicked Tenants=> Matthew's Supper=> Luke's Supper (A=>B=>C) is more likely than Matthew conflating Wicked Tenants and Luke's Supper (B combined A and C).

                      Best wishes,

                      Ken

                      Ken Olson
                      PhD Cand. Religion
                      Duke University



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • E Bruce Brooks
                      To: Synoptic (Ken Olson rescriptus) Ken: I am arguing that my intuition tells me that the trajectory Wicked Tenants= Matthew s Supper= Luke s Supper
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 24, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To: Synoptic (Ken Olson rescriptus)

                        Ken: I am arguing that my intuition tells me that the trajectory Wicked
                        Tenants=> Matthew's Supper=> Luke's Supper (A=>B=>C) is more likely than
                        Matthew conflating Wicked Tenants and Luke's Supper (B combined A and C).

                        Bruce: There are two propositions here: (1) Mt 21:33-46 (Wicked Tenants) >
                        Mt 22:1-14 (Marriage Feast), and (2) Mt 21:33-46 is the sole source of Lk's
                        Supper story, Lk 14:16-24. I would prefer confirmation before commenting. Is
                        it, for instance, claimed that Matthew's Supper story derives only from his
                        preceding Wicked Tenants story? Or is there another input?

                        E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                      • Ken Olson
                        ... Mt 22:1-14 (Marriage Feast), and (2) Mt 21:33-46 is the sole source of Lk s Supper story, Lk 14:16-24. I would prefer confirmation before commenting. Is
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jun 24, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bruce wrote:

                          >>There are two propositions here: (1) Mt 21:33-46 (Wicked Tenants) >

                          Mt 22:1-14 (Marriage Feast), and (2) Mt 21:33-46 is the sole source of Lk's

                          Supper story, Lk 14:16-24. I would prefer confirmation before commenting. Is

                          it, for instance, claimed that Matthew's Supper story derives only from his

                          preceding Wicked Tenants story? Or is there another input?<<


                          I hesitate to say there is *no* other input in either case. Goulder suggests Matthew is influenced by Mk. 2.19f and the Esther story (I am not sure the latter is necessary) for The Marriage Feast and Drury makes the obvious but sometimes overlooked point that the crisis of Judaism brought about by the destruction of Jerusalem has influenced Matthew. Goulder also allows for the influence of Deut. 20.7 on Luke's Supper. I think both Goulder and Drury presuppose the historical development of Christianity from a Jewish to a Gentile or mixed faith has also influenced their tellings. But if you mean another source in the form of an otherwise unknown parable of Jesus about a dinner, then no, no other sources like that. The more general point i was making, however, is that you should deal with what Goulder says about the origin of the parable before dismissing his belief in Matthew's priority.
                          Best,
                          Ken


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • E Bruce Brooks
                          To: Synoptic / Cc: GPG I had asked Ken Olson whether the first of his two propositions about Matthew s Feast (that it is prior to Luke s Feast, and comes out
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jun 25, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            To: Synoptic / Cc: GPG

                            I had asked Ken Olson whether the first of his two propositions about
                            Matthew's Feast (that it is prior to Luke's Feast, and comes out of
                            Matthew's preceding story) was accurately stated. He has clarified as
                            follows: "Goulder suggests Matthew is influenced by Mk. 2.19f and the Esther
                            story (I am not sure the latter is necessary) for The Marriage Feast." And
                            later: "But if you mean another source in the form of an otherwise unknown
                            parable of Jesus about a dinner, then no, no other sources like that." Then
                            we have to do with the following first proposition: Mt 21:33-46 (Wicked
                            Tenants) + Mk 2:19f (+ ?Esther) > Mt 22:1-14 (Marriage Feast).

                            FIRST PROPOSITION

                            Goulder Paradigm (1898) 2/592 acknowledges that he needs to account for the
                            rather complicated form of Mt's Feast story, considered as prior to and not
                            derived from the Lk parallel. He does this by referring to Goulder Midrash
                            (1974) 415f: "The Marriage-feast parable is nothing but a second version of
                            the Wicked Husbandman [n31: so Jeremias PJ 69 n77, somewhat tentatively] in
                            terms of the Esther story, with suitable Christian glosses, and in the
                            Matthean manner. Esther is a book about King Ahasuerus who marries Esther,
                            and the book describes a series of banquets, so the vineyard-owner becomes a
                            king, and the plot of the parable a marriage-banquet. Since Jesus has
                            described himself as the bridegroom (Mk 2:19f), and his disciples as
                            wedding-guests, the situation is changed from being the king's wedding to
                            being the king's son's wedding . . . Matthew's soaring allegory has now
                            transcended the reality of the story situation, but as elsewhere in his
                            Gospel, allegory is his stock-in-trade and never mind the tale." We have
                            here something of a confession that the resulting tale does not make a lot
                            of sense as such; in particular, the wedding guests of Mark do not
                            correspond well with the wedding guests of the Matthew story. And why does
                            Esther and her many banquets come in? Because of the Goulder lectionary
                            theory. The section in Midrash on the Marriage Feast begins this way: "The
                            second week in Adar, on a date varying between 11th and 14th, comes the
                            feast of Purim, celebrating the deliverance of Israel under Esther. . ." But
                            national deliverance does not seem to be the theme of the Marriage Feast in
                            Matthew; rather, if anything, national rejection. The banishing of the
                            original guests (who can only be Jews in this allegory) to the outer
                            darkness of Hell, with which Mt ends his allegory, seems a very strange way
                            to celebrate or symbolize "the delivery of Israel under Esther." Its
                            attraction would seem to be simply as an example of the lectionary theory,
                            and we must next ask, How attractive is the lectionary theory itself?

                            Goulder himself (Five Stones [2009] 19 describes how this theory of Austin
                            Farrer's first fascinated him: "It was, however, easy to be over-impressed
                            by Austin. I found his books, A Study in St Mark and A Rebirth of Images
                            intoxicating, and in the end this was too much of a good thing." Reflecting
                            at the end, on the success of his Five Theses Against The Biblical
                            Establishment [sic; p137], he says this of the "brilliant but implausible
                            theories" for which he had become known: "Among these was my Lectionary
                            Hypothesis. The close correspondence I found between Matthew's Discourses
                            and the Festivals of the Jewish Year seemed impressive, and it was
                            disappointing that the liturgical theory was not widely accepted. This was
                            partly my own fault. Having explained so much I wondered if more could not
                            be explained by parallels between Matthew and the Jewish weekly cycle. I was
                            unlucky to find what looked like encouraging parallels with the first
                            chapter of Genesis, and in my enthusiasm made claims that were too
                            optimistic. It was not long before it was pointed out to me that the Jewish
                            weekly cycle was only in evidence from Talmudic times, that is, some
                            hundreds of years later" (p135). Whether by the week or the month, the idea
                            that Matthew was written *in the first instance* for the purpose of being
                            read in installments around the church year, and that it was authorially
                            shaped *in the first instance* to be appropriate to that use, and that this
                            was the primary purpose of Matthew in writing it, tends to lack
                            convincement. That the Gospels were later drawn on for a series of regular
                            readings is well known, and that some marks in Gospel manuscripts as early
                            as the 4th century can be construed as marking such readings is certainly
                            possible, but as the governing logic for the Gospel of Matthew as a text, I
                            cannot find that it works, and in general, it seems to have found few
                            takers. In the weekly form in which MG has cast his argument for the passage
                            here in question (in Midrash; see above) it is by his own later admission
                            invalid; the weekly Jewish calendar of the 1c is a chimera. Then that
                            particular explanation fails, and with it the Esther banquets (even if they
                            were typologically appropriate, which does not strongly appear), and with it
                            the argument that Matthew could have written his Feast Parable without help
                            from something like Luke's Parable.

                            I thus think that this First Proposition has to be rejected. If someone
                            wants to revive it under their own name, perhaps using as a Banquet
                            inspiration the wedding image of Mk 2:19f, and showing how that transmutes
                            into the Mt story as we have it, they are free to attempt it. They are also
                            entitled to draw on other OT parallels. Blomberg (in Beale and Carson 2007,
                            74f) finds in the Matthean Feast story a possible echo of the messianic
                            banquet of Isa 25:6-9, and of the destroying kings of Judges 1:8, Isa
                            5:24-25, 1 Macc 5:28); Blomberg notes that "several of Matthew's
                            distinctives may be viewed as inspired by Zeph 1:7-10 (Olson 2005)."
                            Amusingly enough, Blomberg detects no Esther in the vicinity. Besides OT
                            echoes, however, some account will need to be given of how these or other
                            elements have generated, not just details of the Matthean narrative, but its
                            internally confused structure. All that lies in the possible future. At
                            present, and as expounded by MG, to whom Ken has here largely deferred, I
                            can only judge that the proposition fails.

                            SECOND PROPOSITION

                            As confirmed by its propounder, this is the claim that Mt 22:1-14, whatever
                            its own origin, is the source of Lk's Feast story, Lk 14:16-24. As earlier
                            noted, MG's exposition of this point is limited to noting the Lukeness of
                            the Lukan version, which argues equally for originality or secondarity, and
                            thus leaves the question open. I believe I have said (in response to Ron
                            Price, the proprietor of a Q-like theory) that it is obvious that the
                            directionality here runs the other way, from the simpler Lk version to the
                            more complex and internally confused Mt one. By "obvious" I do not mean that
                            this is necessarily the true situation, but that it is the one which will
                            spontaneously occur to the broad mass of decently literate readers. A less
                            obvious reading may in fact be true, but will need to be specially argued
                            for.

                            As for the obviousness of the Lk > Mt directionality here, I need only
                            appeal to the broad mass of decently literate commentators on Matthew and/or
                            Luke. I will now proceed to quote twenty of them, spanning the 20th century,
                            and writing both before and after the publication of MG's Paradigm (1989).
                            It should be noted that nearly all these people believe in Q, so the
                            question as it presents itself to them is not whether one is the source of
                            the other, but of which one better preserves the [supposedly] outside
                            original.

                            1. Harnack: The Sayings of Jesus (1906, ET 1908) 119f devotes an entire page
                            to the dissimilarities between the two, and continues (p121), "There is no
                            need of many words to prove that here St Matthew is almost everywhere
                            secondary; the only question is whether the distinction of two classes of
                            poor, as well as the verbal report of the excuses in St Luke, are primary.
                            The former trait answers to this evangelist's warm interest in the very
                            poorest, and the latter to the pictorial style which is a frequent
                            characteristic of St Luke. Nevertheless, in these traits he may also
                            preserve the original text. The main distinction between the two versions is
                            that St Matthew has transformed a genuine parable into an allegory with an
                            historical motive. / Did, however, the text, as presented in St Luke, form
                            the exemplar of St Matthew? And did it belong to Q/ The first question
                            should perhaps be answered in the affirmative: the exemplar of St Matthew,
                            so far as its essential content is concerned, would not have presented a
                            very different appearance from the text given in St Luke, which besides
                            permits of easy translation back again into Aramaic. The second question I
                            am inclined to answer in the negative . . ."

                            2. Allen: Mt (3ed 1912) 235. "So far the editor has adapted a Logian
                            "kingdom" story to his context. In the original parable the story . . . was
                            used to describe the reception accorded to the good news of the coming
                            kingdom of the heavens. By inserting vv6-7 the editor has adapted this, and
                            brought it into line with Mark's parable of the Husbandman, and the
                            preceding parable of the Two Sons. . . The next four verses seem to be the
                            closing paragraph of another parable. They are hardly suitable here as a
                            conclusion of vv1-10, because the people invited in from the streets could
                            hardly be expected to have provided themselves with festal attire."

                            3. M'Neile: Mt (1915) 314. "Lk has preserved the more original form. Mt has
                            changed 'a certain man' into 'a certain king' . . . and a later hand has
                            added the acts of violence to the slaves, the destruction of the murderers
                            and the burning of their city."

                            4. Easton: Lk (1926) 230. "[Julicher] thinks that these verses [Lk 14:18-20]
                            are a Lukan expansion of Mt v5. But they are perfectly natural in the story;
                            Mt has shortened to compensate for his allegorical additions. . . It
                            appears, then, they Lk's form of this parable approximates the original much
                            more closely than Mt's; in fact, the addition of vv21b-22 is about the only
                            important enlargement in Lk."

                            5. Montefiore: Synoptic (2ed 1927) 287f, ap Mt. "The more original form of
                            the parable may be that which we find in Luke . . [v3-5] The banquet of the
                            original parable is turned by Matthew into a wedding feast prepared by a
                            king. . . v8 connects with v5, when v6-7, the later insertions, are omitted.
                            . . v11-13. An addition, which would seem to be borrowed from another
                            current parable. The addition is hardly suitable here."

                            6. Montefiore: Synoptic (2ed 1927) 511f, ap Lk. "Luke's form is the more
                            original. Matthew's version in 22:6-7 has been adapted to the fall of
                            Jerusalem."

                            7. Robinson: Mt (1928) 178. "There seems to be here a parable which is,
                            perhaps, better represented in Luke 14:16-24. If the two are originally
                            identical, then this gospel [that is, Mt] shows a certain development from
                            the earlier form. The most striking difference . . . But this is far from
                            being the only modification . . ."

                            8. Creed: Lk (1930) 192. "Luke does not give the somewhat incongruous
                            addition of Mt that the king sent his armies and destroyed those murders and
                            burnt up their city (22:7), nor does he include the Matthean pendant of the
                            guest who entered without a wedding garment."

                            9. Kilpatrick: The Origins of the Gospel According to St Matthew (1946) 30.
                            "[Mt] 22:1-14 appears to be conflated out of two parables with editorial
                            additions. The Q parable may be taken to be given in Luke 14:15-24." . . .
                            [p82] The parable [Mt] 22:1-14 has suffered two kinds of modification. The
                            reference to the fall of Jerusalem has been introduced in v7, and the story
                            of the Guest without a Wedding Garment, v11-13, has been tacked on, leaving
                            its traces perhaps at v2 also. Lastly, two formulae at v131b and v14 have
                            been attached. There is no trace of these changes in the parallel Lk
                            14:16-24, so that we may presume that they were absent from Q."

                            10. Leaney: Lk (1958) 214. "Since they had themselves refused to come this
                            apparent punishment is not apt at the end of the parable, and comparison
                            with Mt 22:1-10 suggests that the ending is due to Luke, who has thus made
                            it an answer to the pious guest's remark in v15. Mt 22:1-14 conflates the
                            parable with another one; see Kilpatrick p30."

                            11. Caird: Lk (1962) 177 (ap v23). Some scholars consider that this verse is
                            a pro-Gentile elaboration of the original story, because it has no
                            counterpart in Mt 22:2-10. The Matthean version is, however, seriously
                            corrupt; the guests not only disregard but do violence to the servants sent
                            to summon them, the preparations for dinner are interrupted by a punitive
                            expedition to destroy the city in which they live, and after that the dinner
                            is still ready."

                            ----------1974: Year of publication of Goulder Midrash-------

                            12. Marshall: Lk (1978) 584. "A very similar parable appears in Mt 22:1-14,
                            but with considerable alteration and addition. It is generally accepted that
                            the two parables are variants of one original theme, and considerable
                            progress can be made towards reconstructing a basic form of the parable
                            (which turns out to be very close to the Lukan form)."

                            13. Beare: Mt (1981) 432. "In this form, the parable is full of
                            incongruities. . . To magnify the absurdities, the king punishes the
                            murderers by killing them and burning down their city - which is, we must
                            presume, his city too. While this military punitive expedition is being
                            organized and completed, the banquet, roasts and all, is sitting around
                            getting cold, for other guests to enjoy when they have been brought in from
                            the streets, where they are still to be found amid the ruins of the burning
                            city! . . . In its Lukan version, we have a genuine parable, not an allegory
                            . . . It might be remarked that we can hardly imagine that Luke has found
                            this parable in Matthew and has pared it down in this fashion. Either the
                            two evangelists have drawn it from a common source (Q) which Matthew has
                            greatly elaborated, or it has come to them through independent channels of
                            transmission."

                            14. Fitzmyer: Lk (1985) 2/1052. "Why Matthew has varied the form of the
                            parable as he has does not concern us here; the Lucan variants, however, are
                            easily explained." Blessed are those who can get out of explaining the
                            Matthean variants.

                            15. Schnackenburg: Mt (1985 ET 2002) 213. "This much discussed parable,
                            explained in many different ways in the history of interpretation, was
                            developed by Matthew from a much simpler narrative."

                            --------1989: Year of Publication of Goulder Paradigm--------------

                            16. Nolland: Lk (1993) 2/754. "The present unit is paralleled in Mt 22:1-10,
                            though there is considerable dispute whether Matthew and Luke received this
                            parable in the same form. In the end we cannot be sure, but the following
                            points can be made. (i) Most of the Matthean differences can be seen to
                            accord with Matthean theological interests and redactional tendencies and so
                            *could* be attributed to Matthean redaction. (ii) Despite Goulder (588-592),
                            it is difficult to see how the Lukan form could come from anything like the
                            Matthean form, and much easier to see how something like the Lukan form
                            could have developed into the Matthean form."

                            17. Gundry: Mt (1994) 438. "Luke's list is sometimes thought to be the
                            result of assimilation to the saying in Lk 14:13, but the similarity is
                            better taken as an indication that Luke has preserved the original setting
                            and wording of the parable. The poor, crippled, blind, and lame begged along
                            the streets and lanes of the city. Matthew has thrown the city to the flames
                            and can no longer write of such beggars, so he generalizes concerning the
                            people the slaves might find along the country roads."

                            18. Boring: Mt (NIB v8, 1995) 4167. "Matthew has adapted the Q form, placing
                            it in this context to serve as the final item in his triad of judgement
                            parables . . . By extending its allegorical features, assimilating it to the
                            preceding two parables, and placing it last, Matthew makes this story the
                            climax of the progression of this three-parable set" [ap 22:2]. "Matthew
                            introduced the kingship motif into the preceding parable p21:43]. To
                            correspond to this, the "man" of Q who gave a different party now becomes a
                            king who gives a wedding feast for his son. The father/son motif binds
                            together all three parables of this unit."

                            19. McNicol (ed): Beyond the Q Impasse (1996) 211. "It has long been asked
                            what relationship might obtain between this story and the similar Parable of
                            the Marriage Feast in Mt 22:1-10. There is no evidence of Matthean
                            linguistic characteristics present in this (parallel?) Lukan account, which
                            one would expect if Luke were relying upon Mt at this point. Our conclusion
                            is that Luke did not obtain his feast-story from the similar one in Mt 22,
                            but used another source." [The reluctance of this work, which generally
                            espouses and expounds a Mt > Lk directionality, to derive the Lukan Feast
                            from the Matthean feast should be given its due weight].

                            20. Davies and Allison: Mt (1997) 3/196 [on the assumption that a still
                            simpler story lies behind Thomas and Luke as well as Matthew] "In Luke and
                            his tradition the meal becomes a banquet and the guests become more
                            obviously culpable because forewarned . . .Matthew's version is even more
                            removed from the original - as well as from the real world."

                            SUMMARY: What we see here is (1) in directional terms, a consistent
                            reluctance to see Lk as derivable from Mt, and in absolute terms (2) a
                            consistent appreciation of Matthean compositional activity, integrating the
                            story into the sequence where he has placed it. I have found no major voice
                            who defend the Matthean story as an original composition; on the contrary,
                            the commentators seem to consistently point to inconcinnities which are
                            consistent with a scenario of adaptation, but are not consistent with a
                            scenario of composition. I thus do not find that this sample of opinions
                            will sustain the Second Proposition; For that matter, it tends to be
                            inimical to the First Proposition also.

                            THE BOTTOM LINE

                            Why does this matter? Because these passages are make or break for the FH
                            (as Goulder prefers to call it, see Five Stones 135).

                            In Mt/Lk taken together, there are among other things two pairs of stories.
                            One member of each pair (call it A) is reasonably straightforward. The other
                            (call it B) is compromised by the addition of a King motif, which introduces
                            narrative inconcinnities, and general louses up the story. It would be SO
                            nice if the A members were both in Matthew (or failing that, both in Luke).
                            We would then have not only A > B in each pair of stories, as a decently
                            literate reader's natural impression of their relationship would suggest, we
                            would also have Mt > Lk (or the reverse) as the implied Synoptic hypothesis,
                            and all would be, as Bernhard Karlgren used to say, plain sailing. There
                            would be no Q, and one of the Second Tier Gospels would follow, and derive
                            literary material from, the other.

                            Unfortunately, this does not work. The A members are NOT in the same gospel,
                            and the same arguments that MG uses so successfully in the case of the
                            Talents (where the secondary inconcinnities of the Lukan member are good for
                            a laugh and a half) are not available in the case of the Feast, where MG can
                            only point out (see again Paradigm 2/558f) that the Lukan member is very
                            Lukan. This does not meet the case, and in particular, it does not meet the
                            counterposition that has been accumulating in the literature since Harnack
                            1906. It does not deal with the apparent operation of Matthew on prior
                            material, and the resulting inconcinnities and unrealities in Matthew.

                            We can only conclude that, as far as these two symmetrical but contrasted
                            examples show, the Mt/Lk common stories cannot be plausibly construed as
                            unidirectional. A bidirectional character must be conceded. This situation
                            can be resolved only in two ways. One is the Outside Source solution, of
                            which Q and Ron Price's variant of Q are both specimens. The other is to
                            deny the integrity of at least one of Mt or Lk, permitting one of them to be
                            both earlier and later than the other. This is the solution I have been
                            pursuing for some years now, both on this list [Synoptic, and latterly GPG]
                            and in the halls and corridors of SBL. What it has going for it is that it
                            does not come apart at the seams upon encountering the two Royally Confused
                            Parable Sets here considered; one set is in fact Lk > Mt, and the other is
                            just as convincingly Mt > Lk. It remains to be shown that dividing the Mt/Lk
                            Double Tradition material in this way leads to a plausible scenario for all
                            three texts involved: Luke A (Mark plus some new material incorporated by
                            Luke from church tradition known to him plus some original extensions),
                            Matthew (based on Mark and Luke A, with many rearrangements and some new
                            material of his own), and Luke B (based on Matthew with some relocation of
                            previous material and a few last contributions of new matter). This
                            demonstration is currently in progress, and it would be premature to report
                            success. It is however fair to say that there seems to be, so far, no direct
                            refutation.

                            The FH having thus struck out (and with it the Griesbach or GH, which
                            assumes a similar Mt > Lk unidirectionality), on the instance here
                            considered and on several others of like character, including the two
                            Sermons and the two versions of the Lord's Prayer, all of which are
                            perceived by decently literature readers as implying Lk > Mt, the players
                            still standing at this moment seems to be two. They are: (1) the Q family,
                            and (2) the Luke A/B model. We shall see. In the meantime, be it noted that
                            the Luke A/B model retains one distinct advantage of the FH: it accounts not
                            only for the Major Agreements (the parable-length pieces of Mt/Lk material),
                            but also, in principle, for the hundreds of Minor Agreements, which the Q
                            family of theories leave unexplained. I may be moved to give an example of
                            how those agreements can be accommodated in the Luke A/B model presently.

                            C 2011 by E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                          • Mark Goodacre
                            A couple of quick comments on Bruce s most recent essay. ... It is 1989. ... No, Michael retained emphasis on the cycle of festivals in his later work,
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jun 25, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              A couple of quick comments on Bruce's most recent essay.

                              > Goulder Paradigm (1898) 2/592 acknowledges

                              It is 1989.

                              > In the weekly form in which MG has cast his argument for the passage
                              > here in question (in Midrash; see above) it is by his own later admission
                              > invalid; the weekly Jewish calendar of the 1c is a chimera. Then that
                              > particular explanation fails, and with it the Esther banquets (even if they
                              > were typologically appropriate, which does not strongly appear), and with it
                              > the argument that Matthew could have written his Feast Parable without help
                              > from something like Luke's Parable.

                              No, Michael retained emphasis on the cycle of festivals in his later
                              work, including Purim. So Matt. 22.1-14 coincides with Purim. See
                              "Sections and lections in Matthew," JSNT 76 (1999): 79-96 (92-3).

                              > The FH having thus struck out (and with it the Griesbach or GH, which
                              > assumes a similar Mt > Lk unidirectionality), on the instance here
                              > considered and on several others of like character, including the two
                              > Sermons and the two versions of the Lord's Prayer, all of which are
                              > perceived by decently literature readers as implying Lk > Mt, the players
                              > still standing at this moment seems to be two.

                              I suggested recently that using terms like "obvious" in this context
                              could come across as being a touch rude, but I added that I was sure
                              it was not your intention. You have now substituted the term
                              "decently literature [sic] readers", which I think stands for
                              "decently literate readers" (cf. earlier in your message). I am not
                              sure that it is a great improvement to be speaking about "decently
                              literate readers" though it could be that my lack of decent literacy
                              misconstrues your meaning here.

                              All best
                              Mark
                              --
                              Mark Goodacre
                              Duke University
                              Department of Religion
                              Gray Building / Box 90964
                              Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                              Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                              http://www.markgoodacre.org
                            • Ken Olson
                              ... wants to revive it under their own name, perhaps using as a Banquet inspiration the wedding image of Mk 2:19f, and showing how that transmutes into the Mt
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jun 25, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                E. Bruce Brooks wrote:



                                >>I thus think that this First Proposition has to be rejected. If someone

                                wants to revive it under their own name, perhaps using as a Banquet

                                inspiration the wedding image of Mk 2:19f, and showing how that transmutes

                                into the Mt story as we have it, they are free to attempt it. ...

                                Besides OT echoes, however, some account will need to be given of how these or other

                                elements have generated, not just details of the Matthean narrative, but its

                                internally confused structure. All that lies in the possible future. At

                                present, and as expounded by MG, to whom Ken has here largely deferred, I

                                can only judge that the proposition fails.<<

                                As it appears that at present neither of us is willing to spend the time necessary to compose his own original treatment addressing the thematic and verbal parallels between the Tenants and Matthew's Great Supper and expound on their role in the composition of the Matthean narrative, and Goulder's treatment of those issues is disqualified on the basis of his lectionary theory, I shall bow out of the discussion here.

                                Best wishes,

                                Ken

                                Ken Olson
                                PhD Student
                                Duke Religion











































                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.