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

Great Supper [RE: [Synoptic-L] Drury on the lost sheep and the lost coin]

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.