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

Re: [GTh] The leased vineyard

Expand Messages
  • fmmccoy
    ... From: Tom Saunders To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:16 PM Subject: [GTh] The leased vineyard ...
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Tom Saunders" <tom@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:16 PM
      Subject: [GTh] The leased vineyard


      > The parable of the 'leased vineyard' is yet another parable that we may
      show is prior to the other parallels found in Mark, Matthew and Luke. As
      with the other parables we have looked at we see that Mark looks like the
      first redaction (by addition) of the parable from Thomas. I believe the
      authors did this for the sake of adding an explanation about the parable.
      >


      Hi Tom!

      I'm not so sure that the Thomas version is more primitive than the Markan
      version. The Markan version is more highly allegorized, and this is taken
      by many to be a sign that it is less primitive. However, I personally
      think that some of the parables attributed to Jesus were, from the
      word "go", allegorical in nature. So I think the jury is still out on which
      of these two versions is the more primitive.

      In any event, in terms of the elaborated Farrer-Goulder hypothesis (in which
      Matthew knew Mark and Thomas and Luke knew Thomas, Mark, and Matthew) both
      the Thomas and Markan versions of the parable of the leased vineyard are
      more primitive than the Matthean and Lukan versions. As has been pointed
      out in some recent posts, this hypothesis can explain the relationships
      between Thomas 20 and its Synoptic parallels, between Thomas 44 and its
      Synoptic parallels, between Thomas 99 and its Synoptic parallels, and
      between Thomas 107 and its Synoptic parallels.

      In this post, we will examine Thomas 65-66 and its Synoptic parallels in
      Mark 12:1-11, Matthew 21:33-44, and Luke 20:9-18 in terms of the elaborated
      Farrer-Goulder hypothesis. It will be argued that the evidence is
      consistent with this hypothesis, although, by the same token, it does not
      necessarily exclude the Q hypothesis.

      THE INTRODUCTION TO THE PARABLE

      These are the introductions: (1) Thomas: "He said,"; (2) Mark "And he began
      to speak to them in parables,"; (3) Matthew, "Listen to another parable,";
      and (4) Luke, "And he began to tell the people this parable,"

      According to the hypothesis, Matthew knew Thomas and Mark. In this case, he
      rejected the Thomas version. He liked Mark's identification of what follows
      as being a parable. However, unlike Mark, he precedes this parable with a
      parable, i.e., the parable of the two sons. So, while Mark's intro to this
      parable has it being the first parable, Matthew's into into to this parable
      has it being another parable.

      According to the hypothesis, Luke knew Thomas, Mark, and Matthew. His own
      version looks closest to the Markan version. In this case, then, Luke
      preferred the Markan introduction. He made two noteworthy changes. First,
      he amended Mark's vague "them" to "the people". Second, because Mark is
      incorrect in stating that Jesus began to speak in parables (for, in his
      gospel, a second parable does not immediately follow this parable), Luke
      amended Mark's "parables" to "parable".

      PART I OF THE PARABLE

      These are the first parts of the parable: (1) Thomas, "There was a good man
      who owned a vineyard. He leased it to tenant farmers so that they might
      work it and might collect the produce from them."; (2) Mark, "A man planted
      a vineyard, and put a fence around (it), and dug a trough, and built a
      tower. He leased it to farmers and went on a journey."; (3) Matthew, "There
      was a man, a house-master, who planted a vineyard. And he put a fence
      around it and dug, in it, a wine-press, and built a tower, and leased it to
      farmers and departed.", and (4) Luke, "A certain man planted a vineyard and
      leased it to farmers and he went away (for) a long time."

      According to the hypothesis, Matthew knew both Thomas and Mark. In this
      case, he preferred the Markan version over the Thomas version--for his own
      version is very close to the Markan version..

      According to the hypothesis, Luke knew Thomas, Mark, and Matthew. In this
      case, he agreed with Mark and Matthew, against Thomas, that the man planted
      the vineyard and that he went away. However, he agreed with Thomas, against
      Mark and Matthew, that the man did no other work in upgrading the property.

      PART II OF THE PARABLE

      The second parts of the parable read: Thomas, "He sent his servant so that
      the tenants might give him the produce of the vineyard. They seized his
      servant and beat him, all but killing him. The servant went back and told
      his master. The master said, 'Perhaps <they> did not recognize <him>.' He
      sent another servant. The tenants beat this one as well."; (2) Mark, "And
      he sent to the farmers, in the season, a slave--in order that he might
      receive the fruits of the vineyard from the farmers. And, having taken him,
      they beat and sent (him) away empty. And, again, he sent to them another
      slave. And that one they struck on the head and insulted. And he sent
      another, and that one they killed, and many others--some beating and others
      killing.", (3) Matthew, "And when came near the time of the fruits, he sent
      his slaves to the farmers, to receive the fruit of it. And the farmers,
      having taken his slaves, this one they beat, another they killed, and
      another they stoned. Again, he sent other slaves--more than the first
      ones!--and they did similarly to them."; and (4) Luke, "And, in season, he
      sent to the farmers a slave--that they will give to him from the fruit of
      the harvest. But the farmers sent him out empty, having beaten [him]. And
      he proceeded to send another slave. But he also, they, having beaten and
      dishonored, sent out empty. And he proceeded a third (time) to send
      (someone). And also this one, having wounded, they threw out."

      According to the hypothesis, Matthew knew Thomas and Mark. In this case, he
      preferred the Thomas picture of. the man making two efforts to collect the
      produce over the Markan picture of him making three efforts. However, he
      preferred the Markan picture of the man sending out a total of many slaves
      to collect the produce over the Thomas picture of him sending out a total of
      only two servants. As a result, his version has the man sending out a
      goodly number of slaves twice.

      In other respects, he favors Mark's version--modifying it in some respects,
      but, overall, following it fairly closely.

      According to the hypothesis, Luke knew Thomas, Mark, and Matthew. He
      follows Mark in having the man make three efforts to collect the produce (as
      opposed to the two efforts in the Thomas and Matthean versions). However,
      he follows Thomas in having only one person sent in each effort (as opposed
      to Mark, who has a number of people sent on the third effort, and to
      Matthew, who has a number of people sent in each effort). He also follows
      Thomas in not having any of the slaves/servants killed (as opposed to Mark
      and Matthew, who have a number of slaves/servants killed). He follows Mark
      and Matthew in explicitly stating that it was the harvest season (as opposed
      to Thomas, who does not explicitly state this).

      PART III OF THE PARABLE

      Here are third parts of this parable: (1) Thomas, "Then the owner sent his
      son and said, 'Perhaps they will show respect to my son.'. Because the
      tenants knew that it was he who was the heir to the vineyard, they seized
      him and killed him.; (2) Mark, "Still, he had one beloved son. He finally
      sent him to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' But those farmers
      said to themselves, "This one is the heir. Come, let us kill him and the
      inheritance will be ours.' And, having seized (him), they killed him and
      threw him out outside of the vineyard."; (3) Matthew, "And, finally, he sent
      to them his son, saying, 'They will respect my son.' But the farmers, have
      seen the son, said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come let us kill
      him and let us take possession of his inheritance.' And, having taken him,
      they threw him out of the vineyard and killed (him).", and (4) Luke, "And
      said the lord of the vineyard, 'What should I do? I will send my beloved
      son. Perhaps this one they will respect.' But, having seen him, the
      farmers were reasoning with one another saying, 'This one is the heir. Let
      us kill him, that the inhritance may become ours.' And, having driven him
      outside the vineyard, they killed (him)."

      According to the hypothesis, Matthew knew both Thomas and Mark. In this
      case, he preferred the Markan version. Indeed, he only follows Thomas in
      referring to the owner's son as simply "son" rather than (as with Mark)
      "beloved son". Matthew makes one major alteration in changing Mark's
      sequence of the tenants first killing the son and then throwing him
      outside of the vineyard into a sequence of the tenants first throwing the
      son outside the vineyard and then killing him.

      According to the hypothesis, Luke knew Thomas, Mark, and Matthew. In this
      case, he followed Mark in having the owner's son being his "beloved son" (as
      opposed to "son" in Thomas and Matthew). He followed Thomas in having
      the owner think that the tenants will "perhaps" respect his son (as opposed
      to Mark and Matthew, where he is sure that they will respect his son). He
      followed Matthew in having the tenants ejecting the son from the vineyard
      before killing him (as opposed to Mark, who has them killing the son and
      then ejecting him from the vineyard).

      PART IV OF THE PARABLE

      Here are the fourth parts of the parable: (1) Thomas, "Let him who has ears
      hear."; (2) Mark, "What, then, will the lord of the vineyard do? He will
      come and destroy the farmers and will give the vineyard to others."; (3)
      Matthew, "'Therefore, when came the Lord of the vineyard, what will he do
      those farmers?' They say to him, 'Those evildoers! he will bring them to a
      terrible end and the vineyard he will lease to other farmers who will give
      back to him the fruits in their seasons.'", and (4) Luke, "'What, then, will
      the lord of the vineyard do to them? He will come and will destroy these
      farmers and will give the vineyard to others.' And, having heard this, they
      said, ' May it never be!'"

      In the hypothesis, Matthew knew both Thomas and Mark. In this case, he
      rejected Thomas and accepted Mark. Matthew, rejecting Mark's picture of
      Jesus answering his own question, introduces a group ("they") to answer it.

      In this hypothesis, Luke knew Thomas, Mark, and Matthew. In this case, he
      rejected Thomas. He agreed with Mark that Jesus answered his own question
      (as opposed to Matthew, who has "they" answer the question). However, he
      agreed with Matthew in having the group ("they") make a response to Jesus
      (as opposed to Mark, who doesn't mention "they" at all). What he attributes
      to "they" (i.e., "May it never be!") is his own invention.

      PART V OF THE PARABLE

      Here are the fifth parts of the parable: (1) Thomas, "Jesus said, 'Show me
      the stone which the builders have rejected. That one is the cornerstone.'";
      (2) Mark, "(Have you) not read this scripture, 'A stone which the ones
      building rejected, this one has come to be to be for (the) capstone of (the)
      corner. This came to be from (the) Lord and it is wonderful in our eyes.'";
      (3) Matthew, "Says Jesus to them, 'Have you never read in the scriptures,
      (The) stone which the ones building rejected, this one became head of (the)
      corner. This came about from (the) Lord and it is marvelous in our eyes.
      For this reason, I say to you, the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and
      it will be given to a nation producing its fruit. And the one, having
      fallen on this stone, will be crushed. And on whomever it falls, it will
      crush him.'"; and (4) Luke, "But, having looked at them, he said, 'What,
      then, is this, having been written, (The) stone which the builders rejected,
      this one came to be for (the) head of (the) corner. Everyone, having fallen
      upon that stone, will be broken into pieces. And, upon whomever it falls,
      it will crush him.'"

      In the hypothesis, Matthew knew Thomas and Mark. In this case, Matthew's
      introductory ("Says Jesus to them") is based on Thomas' introductory ("He
      said"), for Mark has no parallel to it. In the rest of it, Matthew prefers
      Mark to Thomas. Matthew added a final section that is absent from both
      Thomas and Mark (i.e., "For this reason, I say to you, the Kingdom of God
      will be taken from you and it will be given to a nation producing its fruit.
      'And the one, having fallen on this stone, will be crushed. And on whomever
      it falls, it will crush him.'"). It is his own invention. (Note: A
      qualifier needs to be added that the final two sentences of this Matthean
      addition (i.e., "'And the one, having fallen on this stone, will be crushed.
      And on whomever it falls, it will crush him." ) are not in all ancient
      copies of Matthew.)

      In this hypothesis, Luke knew Thomas, Mark, and Matthew. In this case, his
      intro ("But, looking at them, he said") is partially based on Thomas (for
      "he said" is closer to Thomas' "Jesus said" than to Matthew's "Jesus
      says"). However, it also has an influence from Matthew (for, like Matthew's
      intro, his intro mentions "them").

      Like Mark and Matthew (and unlike Thomas), Luke identifies the saying about
      the stone as coming from scripture.

      Luke adds a second stone saying (i.e., "Everyone, having fallen upon that
      stone, will be broken into pieces. And, upon whomever it falls, it will
      crush him.") that he derives from Matthew--for this second saying is also
      found only in Matthew. (Note: A qualifier needs to be added here that not
      all ancient copies of Matthew have this second stone saying. So, it is
      possible that this second stone saying is added by Luke on his own).

      SUMMARY

      In the elaborated Farrer-Goulder hypothesis, Matthew knew both Thomas and
      Mark. As respects the parable of the leased vineyard, evidence is
      consistent with Matthew having based his own version of it on the Markan
      version of it.

      Evidence of Matthew being aware of the Thomas version is weak. He follows
      Thomas in having the owner make two attempts with slaves/servants to collect
      the produce (in Mark, he makes three attempts). He follows Thomas in
      referring to the male offspring of the owner as "son" rather than (as in
      Mark) "beloved son". He has one phrase ("Jesus says to them") that is
      paralleled in a phrase from Thomas ("Jesus said"), but has no parallel in
      Mark. This is enough evidence to make it possible that Matthew knew Thomas'
      version of the parable, but falls short of making a solid case for Matthew
      having known of Thomas' version of the parable.

      In this hypothesis, Luke knew Mark, Thomas, and Matthew. As with Matthew,
      the evidence is consistent with Luke having based his own version of it on
      the Markan version of it.

      However, while evidence that Matthew knew Thomas is weak, the evidence that
      Luke knew Thomas is strong--for there are a number of instances where he
      agrees with Thomas rather than with Mark and Matthew.

      There is some evidence that Luke knew Matthew. Very strikingly, he follows
      Matthew in having the tenants first ejecting the son from the vineyard
      and then killing him (for, in Mark, they first kill him and then eject him
      from the vineyard). He agrees, with Matthew, that there was an interjecting
      group (the them/they), while this interjecting group is absent from both the
      Thomas and Markan versions of the parable. He likely follows Matthew in
      adding a second stone saying absent from both the Thomas and Markan versions
      of the parable--but this is not certain because some ancient copies of
      Matthew lack this second stone saying. This evidence (particularly since
      some ancient copies of Matthew do not contain the second stone saying) is
      not strong enough, though, to make a solid case for Luke having known
      Matthew.

      The bottom line: As respects the various versions of the parable of the
      vineyard, there is enough evidence to make a good case for Matthew knowing
      the Markan version and for Luke knowing both the Markan and Thomas versions.
      There is some evidence to indicate that Matthew knew the Thomas version and
      some evidence to indicate that Luke knew the Matthean version. However, in
      neither case, is there enough evidence for coming to any firm conclusions.
      As a result, the evidence is consistent with the elaborated Farrer-Goulder
      Hypothesis, but does not necessarily exclude the Q hypothesis.

      Frank McCoy
      1809 N. English Apt. 15
      Maplewood, MN USA 55109
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.