Re: [Synoptic-L] Virtue and Poverty
Welcome to the non-peasant club. That makes two.
I can only agree about the slathers of OT processing of Jesus in
Matthew. One point in particular seems to be argued two ways by people
who know Aramaic, and I would like to ask your opinion. The question
is whether Matthew is organized in six groups or in five. The five
option would presumably constitute a tacit allusion to the five books
of the Pentateuch, except that it has been claimed, against this, that
(1) the six-part division is a superior reading of the text, and (2)
there was no Jewish sense of "five books" in the period in question,
rather, the conception at that time was of a single book.
The Exodus model for Jesus seems to have been an idea already in Mark.
The Egypt sojourn in Matthew would seem to be a development of that
motif, and to strengthen the case for a Mosaic model for Jesus in
Matthew, which I had always thought was supported in turn by the
five-part organization of the text.
What's your take on that?
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
There was no personal income tax back then. The owner of the land was taxed on the harvest, not the workers on the land. The more you tax the owner, the less is left for wages. This was far from the only dynamic in play in the poverty of peasants, but that's the way it worked.
--- On Fri, 4/9/10, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
I have to admit that by modern example killing the geese that lay the golden
eggs seems just as stupid now as it was then.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]