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
  • 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 1 of 14 , Jun 24, 2011
      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 2 of 14 , Jun 24, 2011
        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 3 of 14 , Jun 25, 2011
          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 4 of 14 , Jun 25, 2011
            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 5 of 14 , Jun 25, 2011
              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.