Uploaded November 2023 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
Here I discuss the Synoptic parable of the vineyard or parable of the wicked tenants. I'm going to suggest (next time) an undesigned coincidence between Matthew's telling of this parable and Luke's telling.
Here I set up some methodological issues. I acknowledge *freely* that there are very close verbal parallels among the three versions in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. I also acknowledge that these could very easily be a result of literary dependance. But at the same time I bring out and question the assumption that if, say, Matthew had a memory of this, or if Luke had a witness of the parable, they would never have made literary use of Mark. Why not? If it has been years since the event, one might as well make use of someone else's memory of it.
But the differences are as undeniable as the similarities. And I don't think that we should assume that the differences cannot be due to memory. Memory is naturally paraphrastic. This is the *legitimate* place for the notion of paraphrase--recognizable, casual variation. And I suggest that it could very well be true that both Jesus' audience and Jesus himself affirmed that the owner of the vineyard would come and destroy the wicked tenants.
This sets the stage for the suggestion of an undesigned coincidence, coming up next time...!
Here I discuss the Synoptic parable of the vineyard or parable of the wicked tenants. I'm going to suggest (next time) an undesigned coincidence between Matthew's telling of this parable and Luke's telling.
Here I set up some methodological issues. I acknowledge *freely* that there are very close verbal parallels among the three versions in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. I also acknowledge that these could very easily be a result of literary dependance. But at the same time I bring out and question the assumption that if, say, Matthew had a memory of this, or if Luke had a witness of the parable, they would never have made literary use of Mark. Why not? If it has been years since the event, one might as well make use of someone else's memory of it.
But the differences are as undeniable as the similarities. And I don't think that we should assume that the differences cannot be due to memory. Memory is naturally paraphrastic. This is the *legitimate* place for the notion of paraphrase--recognizable, casual variation. And I suggest that it could very well be true that both Jesus' audience and Jesus himself affirmed that the owner of the vineyard would come and destroy the wicked tenants.
This sets the stage for the suggestion of an undesigned coincidence, coming up next time...!
