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

Re: [GTh] The Rule of the Shepherds Some Comments

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    ... From: Stephen To: Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:22 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] The Rule of the Shepherds
    Message 1 of 2 , May 26, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Stephen" <stephen@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:22 PM
      Subject: Re: [GTh] The Rule of the Shepherds Some Comments


      > Andrew,
      >
      > Thank you for your comments. I have the following points -
      >
      > >
      <SNIP>
      >
      > > 2/ Is Thomas 65 related to the Shepherds in Enoch ?
      > > The idea of the Shepherds in Enoch is very distinctive and
      > > striking. Angels (the Shepherds) are appointed by Yahweh to
      > > destroy his people, their vigorous performance of their role is
      > > apparently accepted by Yahweh. However he is having a secret
      > > record kept and will in the end punish the Shepherds for having
      > > enjoyed their job too much.
      > > IMO these unusual features seem missing in Thomas 65. The
      > > feature in the Synoptic Vineyard story which does seem similar,
      > > the predicted destruction of the tenants by the owner, is notably
      > > missing in Thomas 65.
      > >
      >
      > Establishing a link between Thomas 65 and Enoch does not necessarily mean
      > that Thomas has copied Enoch. It could be that both are derived from
      > another source or are representative of the same system of beliefs. To
      > establish a link it is sufficient to show that there enough features in
      > common to make a random connection unlikely - it is not necessary to show
      > that all or even most features agree.
      >
      > In any case it is interesting that, as you point out, the version in Mark
      is
      > actually closer to Enoch on the point of the fate of the Shepherds. The
      > internal evidence of the Mark saying indicates that it is descended from a
      > version that, like Thomas, had two servants. So perhaps the Mark version
      is
      > descended form a variant that matched the Shepherd myth more closely than
      > our extant Thomas version.
      >
      >
      I am troubled on the issue of methodology here. By selecting
      elements from different and widely varying versions of a parable
      one can often construct an 'original' parable with significant
      resemblances to another narrative but I have doubts as to what
      this proves. The procedure can be worryingly circular
      The problems increase when the claimed connection is not between
      some version of a parable and some other narrative but instead the
      narrative and parable are held to both derive from a hypothetical
      common source.

      More specifically I'm doubtful whether the three servants in Mark is a
      modification of an earlier two servants. The fact that Matthew (who is
      almost certainly modifying Mark) has two sendings only, although of
      several servants may suggest that the rambling version in Mark could
      be primary and that other versions have 'streamlined' it in one way or
      another.
      The parable differs so much in its four extant versions that one is
      hesitant to say one of the four forms is the original from which the
      others derive. However IMHO one can make a plausible argument
      for Luke and Matthew modifying Mark's version in various ways and
      Thomas harmonizing Matthew and Luke.
      I'm not confident that this is right but by Occam's razor it has
      something to be said for it.

      More generally I do feel that you may be blurring the distinction
      between saying that influence of the myth of the Shepherds on the
      parable of the Vinedressers is an interesting possibility and claiming
      that it is a stromg probability.

      Andrew Criddle
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.