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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Stumbling Stones

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 3/10/2001 4:47:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, JFAlward@aol.com writes:
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 11, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 3/10/2001 4:47:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      JFAlward@... writes:

      << Is it a marriage feast parable, followed by a wedding garment parable? If
      that were true, the passage could be divided into two independent,
      self-contained stories, and I see no point at which that could be done
      without leaving each half incoherent or incomplete. I believe this is a
      single parable about two kinds of people: those who aren't allowed so much
      as a glimpse of heaven, and those who are, but who are thrown out afterwards,
      as per 2 Kings 7:2:

      Look, even if the LORD should open the floodgates of the heavens, could this
      happen?" "You will see it with your own eyes," answered Elisha, "but you will
      not eat any of it!">>

      This is an interesting OT parallel I had never seen invoked with respect to
      the Matthean parable. You are starting to think like Luke thinks! In fact, in
      a way, Lk 14:24 is a closer parallel (without much verbal overlap, though)
      with this text than is the Matthean conclusion. I guess we can agree, in sum,
      that Matt 22:1-14 is a single parable with two somewhat distinct parts and
      points?

      [Commenting on my introduction of 1 Sam 19 as a partial model for Luke's
      version of the parable of the workers in the vineyard]:

      << Your comment puzzles me. Luke 20:10-12 speaks of three of the Lord's
      servants; one is beaten, one is beaten and treated shamefully, and another
      is
      wounded. Why would Luke use 1 Samuel 19, in which no servants of the Lord
      are sent, no servants beaten, none shamed, and none wounded? How could Luke
      have overlooked the prophet who was beaten in Jeremiah 20:1-2, the prophet
      being beaten and mocked in Isaiah 50:6, and the prophet being wounded
      (stoned
      to death) in 2 Chronicles 24:21?

      None of the texts you cite has strong enough verbal links with the Lukan
      parable to render a connection likely. Our aim as exegetes should be to see
      where Luke has gone in the OT, not where he should have gone. There is much
      linguistic evidence, on the contrary, to suggest that Luke went here to the
      story in 1 Sam 19 where three sets of messengers are sent to kill the king
      elect (David). It is the threefold sending of messengers, and the theme of
      (actual or) intended murder of the king-designate that Luke sees as the
      connecting links between this OT story and the parable of the vineyard as
      told in Matt 21:33-44. The theme of Jesus as king-designate has been sounded
      recently in Lk by the sole reference to Jesus as "son of David" in Lk 18:38,
      and by Lk 19:12.

      The links between a given text of Luke and the subsidiary texts on which he
      draws when writing it are usually rather clear, even if the basis of the
      connection seems weak to us. Take today's gospel, e.g., the transfiguration
      story in Lk 9. Matthew says nothing about "prayer" in his transfiguration
      story, nor are the themes of being "heavy (BEBARHMENOI) with sleep" or of
      "watching" (GRHGOREIN) found in Matt 17. Luke, however, has clearly borrowed
      all of these themes in Lk 9:28 and 32 from the story of the agony in the
      garden as told in Matt 26. The link between these two stories
      (transfiguration and agony) in Matt is evidently found, among other things,
      in the very "material" fact that Jesus is in both cases accompanied by the
      three disciples: Peter, James and John. This does not, of course, mean that
      Luke saw the two stories as full-blown "parallel" narratives in Matt, but he
      clearly saw this as a sufficient link to justify the borrowing of elements
      from the second story for his version of the first. I don't know if this
      amounts precisely to the gezera sheva style of Rabbinic association of texts,
      but it is close to it in kind, I think.

      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.