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

10717Re: [GTh] Re: New Op-ed Piece on my Site

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    Nov 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      [Ian Brown]:
      > We should be careful here not to read too much into the possible
      presence
      > of a creditor, for as Kloppenborg argues, if this is a
      creditor, then the parable
      > functions as a critique of wealth, not of the character of
      the person.
       
      But Kloppenborg makes several statements that point to the person's character:
       
      "In each instance, [L63-65] figures who seek or possess wealth or who strive
      for status among their peers through status-displays at banquets are criticized
      and their pursuits lampooned."
       
      "The designation of the main character as an [xhrsths] is ... an ideologically laden
      type-casting of a person who is in violation of old Israelite laws concerning loans."
       
      Finally (this comes before the above two, but I want to lead into another point):
       
      "Marcion's negative estimation of the parable of the Tenants, and in particular,
      presumably, the role of the owner, is anticipated by at least several decades
      in the Gospel of Thomas."
       
      The point I want to lead into here is that it's been growing on me that the reason
      for using 'good man' could have been that it was assumed that the parable would
      be interpreted allegorically, and it was desired to make clear that the land-owner
      didn't represent the inferior creator-god. I'm unclear, however, on how dating
      plays into this. In saying that GThom antedates Marcion by several decades,
      I think that Kloppenborg is assuming that XRHSTHS was in the Greek version,
      for likely the Coptic version was later than Marcion, n'est ce pas? What concerns
      me about this is that, if my supposition is to be plausible, it has to be the case
      that ideas of a good god vs. a creator-god were in the air at the time that
      XRHSTOS was put into L65. It needn't have been Marcion, since he wasn't
      the first, but I'm not even sure that the Greek mss. clearly predate Marcion. I
      think that's rather iffy, given the range of error in the dating of them. Anyone
      have any thoughts or info on this subject?
       
      By the way, I think it's basically irrelevant to this question what Jesus intended
      to convey. Whatever word was put into L65, it almost certainly wasn't put there
      because it was thought to accurately represent the thinking of the historical Jesus.
      Thomas was no more interested in what we think of as factual accuracy than
      the canonical gospels.
       
      Mike Grondin
    • Show all 34 messages in this topic