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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.