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

Again The Feast (Mt 22:1-14)

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic / GPG (again Mt 22:1-14) Speaking of bidirectionality, and revisiting the specific issue of directionality as it arises in terms of the two Feast
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 28, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic / GPG (again Mt 22:1-14)


      Speaking of bidirectionality, and revisiting the specific issue of
      directionality as it arises in terms of the two Feast pericopes, does the
      decision to identify Mt 22:6-7 (with Montefiore and others) as a post-70
      interpolation change the ballgame for the directionality question itself?
      Does removing this ludicrous inconcinnity also remove the problem previously
      felt with Mt as the original form of this story? And thus restoring the
      feasibility of the FH paradigm as explanatory for this passage?


      My judgement would be, No. There is still the problem of where the banquet
      element in the MT banquet story came from. If Mt was adapting the Lukan
      banquet by adding his King motive, we can see how he would like the Isaian
      banquet previously referred to, not to mention the warring kings also
      previously cited. They would comfort and sustain him in his adaptation. But
      the proposition that these OT elements plus a bit of Mk have *generated* the
      Matthew story as we have it, still seems to me too great a stretch. I can't
      quite see the Synoptists sitting with a vacant stare, pen in hand but
      pausing in their work, and mentally ransacking the Scriptures for a little
      inspiration. Especially when the alternative is that a simpler nonRoyal
      banquet story was already to hand in Luke A.


      So it seems that by accepting the interpolation as an interpolation we have
      removed a chronological problem from Matthew (which, as written, after all
      contained no awareness of the destruction of 70; always a good thing to
      know), and we have removed a gross incoherence from the Mt 22:1-14 story,
      and thus somewhat redeemed the image of Mt as a competent adapter, which is
      a relief to all right thinking persons, without in this case bringing him
      forward as a plausible first author of the Feast allegory.


      E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst



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