Ken Olson wrote: Ben Smith: I do not think it affects anything you said, but it appears this passage is not extant in the Syriac; it is extant only as one of the Greek fragments published by Migne (PG 24: 685 & 688).
Okay, I'm going to regret not having quit after my first post and rushed into the second. Yes, I see now that your quotation of Luomanen actually quotes some of the Greek--and Syriac Theophany 4.22 is about the fate of the Jews.
Just for reference, here is the Greek: Ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἧκον Ἑβραϊκοῖς χαρακτῆρσιν εὐαγγέλιον τὴν ἀπειλὴν οὐ κατὰ τοῦ ἀποκρύψαντος ἐπῆγεν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τοῦ ἀσώτως ἐζηκότος – τρεῖς γὰρ δούλους περιεῖχε, τὸν μὲν καταφαγόντα τὴν ὕπαρξιν τοῦ δεσπότου μετὰ πορνῶν καὶ αὐλητρίδων, τὸν δὲ πολλαπλασιάσαντα τὴν ἐργασίαν, τὸν δὲ κατακρύψαντα τὸ τάλαντον· εἶτα τὸν μὲν ἀποδεχθῆναι, τὸν δὲ μεμφθῆναι μόνον, τὸν δὲ συγκλεισθῆναι δεσμωτηρίῳ – ἐφίστημι, μήποτε κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον μετὰ τὴν συμπλήρωσιν τοῦ λόγου τοῦ κατὰ τοῦ μηδὲν ἐργασαμένου ἡ ἑξῆς ἐπιλεγομένη ἀπειλὴ οὐ περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ προτέρου κατ' ἐπανάληψιν λέλεκται, τοῦ ἐσθίοντος καὶ πίνοντος μετὰ τῶν μεθυόντων.
But my larger point was that we're getting only a few comments from Eusebius on what must have been a much larger parable.
Yes, I agree with this.
But again, my major point is that you really can't do source criticism effectively based on Eusebius' few comments on the parable, and we're not even sure how to take those. Nothing like Goodacre's argument from fatigue can be applied here. Just looking through Eusebius comments he remarks on the one who lived extravagantly wasting his master's money with prostitutes and flute-girls, but when he comes to it again he describes presumably the same one as the one who drank and ate with drunks. So it's really hard to to tell just what was said in the parable. I admit it seems unlikely that there was redistribution of wealth at the end....
While I agree that all of this is tenuous, and it is an experiment in many ways, what piqued my interest from the beginning is how Luke gets into a bit of trouble when he expands the parable to 10 servants, while both Matthew and Luke stumble a bit (in different ways) when they have the master redistribute the money as per Mark 4.25, and it
looks like this Hebraic parable seems to avoid both pitfalls (by
probably having only three servants: τρεῖς γὰρ δούλους περιεῖχε; and by
almost certainly lacking any redistribution of wealth, if Luomanen's reconstruction of the three outcomes is correct). Is it possible that this parable came later than the synoptics and perhaps even added in its own fresh varieties of editorial fatigue compared to them? Of course; it is possible. There are unknowns aplenty, and I am not suggesting overthrowing entire theories, whether 2 Source or Farrer or Greisbach or what have you, on the basis of one parable. I am really just exploring what might happen when more than just the synoptic three (and occasionally John) are brought into the mix; for I
do feel that students and scholars of the synoptic problem often tend to really look only at the synoptic three and treat all other texts as afterthoughts.
Ben Smith: I will return to the rest (including possible comments on that Context Group paragraph) after I have given more thought to your comments. Thanks.
That sounds ominous. I'm probably going to regret what I said there.
Oh, I doubt that; I think the main thing is that you seem to be writing as if I (or Luomanen, actually) brought in Malina and Rohrbaugh to say something about the Matthean or Lucan parables; to wit:
But my point is this: M & R interpret the parables in a cultural context they've reconstructed for first century Galillee, which becomes "the Mediterranean culture." All of the Mediterranean? Romans, Greeks, etc.? I suspect they mean something more limited like Semitic-speaking peasant culture but that's still pretty broad. But what they're doing is hypothesizing a particular context and then interpreting (i.e., assigning the meaning to) the parables within the context they've hypothesized. Now it seems to me there are a few unwarranted Marxist assumptions in their socially-scientifically reconstructed abstraction called Mediterranean culture, but leaving those aside--how do we know that's the context for interesting the parables? Luke is very likely a Greek urbanite with a good education including at least the basics of greek philosophy, so why isn't that the context in which to interpret Luke's parables?
But the
only reason they got mentioned at all was to comment on the Hebraic parable and the possible order of the outcomes. Nothing more. I have actually profoundly disagreed with Malina and Rohrbaugh on many occasions for many of the reasons you adduce above. Specifically, IIRC, they actually try to interpret the parable of the pounds or talents itself, as we find it in the synoptics, as an indictment of the master and a vindication of peasant anticapitalistic values! I cannot follow that. Yet, in the case of the Hebraic parable, I think that such a scenario may be most likely; the idea of burying entrusted money to keep it from being stolen (a far more common threat in antiquity than in modern developed countries with banks and insurance) is found, for example, in the Babylonian Talmud,
Tractate Baba Mezi'a 42a:
Mishnah.
If a man deposited money with his neighbour, who bound it up and slung it over his shoulder [or] entrusted it to his minor son or daughter and locked [the door] before them, but not properly, he is liable, because he did not guard [it] in the manner of bailees. but if he guarded it in the manner of bailees, he is exempt.
Gemara.
As for all, it is well, since indeed he did not guard it in the manner of bailees: but if he bound it up and slung it over his shoulder — what else should he have done? — Said Raba in R. Isaac's name: Scripture saith, and thou shalt bind up the money in thine hand — even if bound up, it should be in thy hand.
R. Isaac also said: One's money should always be ready to hand, for it is written, and thou shalt bind up the money in thy hand.
R. Isaac also said: One should always divide his wealth into three parts: [investing] a third in land, a third in merchandise, and [keeping] a third ready to hand.
R. Isaac also said: A blessing is found only in what is hidden from the eye, for it is written, The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy hidden things. The School of R. Ishmael taught: A blessing comes only to that over which the eye has no power, for it is said, The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy hidden things.
Our Rabbis taught: When one goes to measure [the corn in] his granary, he should pray, 'May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, to send a blessing upon the work of our hands.' Having started to measure, he prays, 'Blessed is He who sendeth a blessing on this pile.' But if he measured and then prayed, it is a vain prayer, because a blessing is not found in that which is [already] weighed, measured, or counted, but only in that which is hidden from the eye, for it is said, The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy hidden things.
Samuel said: Money can only be guarded [by placing it] in the earth. Said Raba: Yet Samuel admits that on Sabbath eve at twilight the Rabbis did not put one to that trouble. Yet if he tarried after the conclusion of the Sabbath long enough to bury it [the money] but omitted to do so, he is responsible [if it is stolen]. But if he [the depositor] was a scholar, he [the bailee] might have thought, He may require the money for habdalah. But nowadays that there are money-diviners, it can be properly guarded only [by placing it] under the roof beams. But nowadays that there are house breakers, it can be guarded only [within the void spaces] between bricks. Raba said: Yet Samuel admits [that it may be] hidden] in the wall. But nowadays that there are rappers, It can be guarded only in the handbreadth nearest to the earth or to the uppermost beams.
I know this deals with neighbors entrusting wealth to neighbors and not with masters entrusting it to slaves, but compare the attitude ensconced in Thomas 64: "Businessmen and merchants will not enter the places of my father." And compare Josephus,
Antiquities 4.8.38 §285-288 (summarizing the law of Moses):
[285] Let him that has received any thing in trust for another, take care to keep it as a sacred and divine thing; and let no one invent any contrivance whereby to deprive him that hath intrusted it with him of the same, and this whether he be a man or a woman; no, not although he or she were to gain an immense sum of gold, and this where he cannot be convicted of it by any body; [286] for it is fit that a man's own conscience, which knows what he hath, should in all cases oblige him to do well. Let this conscience be his witness, and make him always act so as may procure him commendation from others; but let him chiefly have regard to God, from whom no wicked man can lie concealed: [287] but if he in whom the trust was reposed, without any deceit of his own, lose what he was intrusted withal, let him come before the seven judges, and swear by God that nothing hath been lost willingly, or with a wicked intention, and that he hath not made use of any part thereof, and so let him depart without blame; but if he hath made use of the least part of what was committed to him, and it be lost, let him be condemned to repay all that he had received. [288] After the same manner as in these trusts it is to be, if any one defraud those that undergo bodily labor for him. And let it be always remembered, that we are not to defraud a poor man of his wages, as being sensible that God has allotted these wages to him instead of land and other possessions; nay, this payment is not at all to be delayed, but to be made that very day, since God is not willing to deprive the laborer of the immediate use of what he hath labored for.
Throw in the prohibitions against charging interest to one's own countrymen in Exodus 22.25; Leviticus 25.35-37; and Deuteronomy 23.19-20, and I can easily envision the parable accepting the one who buried the money (for safekeeping). That was the only reason the Context Group got brought in.
As I mentioned in the OP, Luomanen actually presents four arguments for the Hebraic parable postdating the synoptics, which I may post and respond to at some point; but one of his arguments is the kind that your observations about Galilean peasants not comprising the entirety of Mediterranean culture already answers; in fact, I have a partial response already written up, and your comments are pretty similar in nature.
So I apologize, Ben, for not having paid as much attention to the details in your post as they deserve. I realize you've put a great deal of thought into this. Maybe I'll get back to this when I have more time, more knowledge of the synoptic problem, more intelligence, and maybe even a more beautiful wife
No problem at all! I really appreciate the input. I have gathered both that (as I suspected out loud in the OP) it is hard to commit to a specific hypothesis when there are so many variables that have to fall in the right direction and that there are some specific points I made that I need to shore up. So thanks. And best wishes on whatever it is you plan to do (?) about your wife....
Ben.
