1. From your reading of this parable in all three Synoptic Gospels in parallel, do you think that the Gospel writers are recording the same parable from one incident in Jesus' life? Why or why not?

It seems to most likely that the writers are recording the same event. However it is possible that Jesus spoke this same parable to different audiences at about the same time, maybe like a politician's canned "stump speech". This parable would appear to come late in his ministry because he is obliquely prophesizing his own death to his listeners. He speaks more of this death as the cross approaches.

2. Assuming it is the same parable spoken on the same occasion, how do you account for the fact that so much of its wording is identical?

If the parable was only spoken one time, one would expect that the language would be nearly identical. Matthew is recalling the event and writing it down. Mark is writing the memories of Peter. Luke is extracting from a source (maybe Mark or proto-Mark).

3. Assuming it is the same parable spoken on the same occasion, how do you account for the fact that so much of its wording is different?

I've always liked what C.S. Lewis says about synoptics. On the one hand, if the three Gospel writers produced identical accounts down-to-the-letter, then critics would say "they cheated. They just copied from each other". On the other hand, if their products were totally different, then the critics would say "these writers don't know what they are saying. They all have different stories". I think that it is a testament to their honesty that the 3 synoptic Gospels are similar in the main, yet different in detail. Each Gospel writer recalls the events slightly different, putting a special "spin" on the events for the intended audience. Remember, these Gospels were not written as histories to inform, but as pleas for us to accept Jesus as Lord.

4. Assuming it is the same parable spoken on the same occasion, how would you characterize the differences in wording and, especially, the main point the parable makes?

I think that the main point is the same in each rendering, i.e. "The stone that he builders rejected…" I can understand why the wording would be different for different writers. If the gospel writers are relying on memory to record this parable of Jesus, then I would expect some fuzziness in the details. For example, I have now read this triple tradition of a parable in each Gospel about 4 times (as of 11:30 PM on Sunday night). If I were to write down this "Parable of the Evil Farmers" from memory, I think that there would be a fourth version. (i.e. the "Gospel according to Chris"). My record would jumble all three accounts and probably add an original word or two. Everyone familiar with the parable would certainly recognize it, but the details would be mangled no doubt. This is my idea of what happened. Jesus told a parable with these particulars (1) a man planted a vineyard. (2) the vineyard was rented out to tenants. (3) At least three slaves were sent to collect the rent and were abused. (4) the landowner finally sent his son. (5) The tenants conspired and killed the son. (5) Jesus then asked the question "what should happen to these evil farmers?" (6) the leaders understood that the parable was spoken against them and their tried to take him but they could not. I think that the gospel writers were remembering the same event, but human frailty prevented identical rendering of the words.

5. Can you think of any settings in which you might prefer to preach/teach from one of the parables instead of the other two? (do this with all three accounts).

The words "one son, his wellbeloved" in Mark closely ties the son in this parable to Jesus. If I were to use this passage to demonstrate that the son of the story is indeed Jesus, then maybe Mark would be best. Matthew hints that the farmland will be given to others, possibly gentiles. Matthew's tradition may best show the transfer of the Gospel to the gentiles. Unlike Mark and Luke where Jesus just tells the parable without interacting, Matthew records dialogue between Jesus and the leaders. In Luke, the parable is sprung the best. The leaders respond to Jesus' words with "god forbid". They do not recognize themselves. Only later does it dawn on them that the parable was spoken against them. I would use Luke to demonstrate how Jesus could draw people into the parable without them knowing it.