From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Relative Dating of the Parables
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:35:32 GMT

Hi all. Recently, I was looking at several of the parables given in the
Gospel_of_Thomas (from the Nag Hammadi library) that have canonical 
parallels (logia #9, 20, and 64, for instance), and wondering, 
what criteria do scholars use to rate the relative 'age' of 
variants in the parables and other 'logia' ('sayings') of Jesus? 

For instance, to take a canonical example, in  
Matt 6:20 'no thief breaks/digs through' [Gr.'DIORUSSO'] while
in Luke 12:33 'no thief approaches' [Gr.'EGGIZO'], in generally equivalent 
passages.  The Matt. phrasing might be seen as an older (closer to the 
source) variant, based on its using the more concrete verb.

Well, after some head-scratching (and fruitless querying of some 
net.boards, etc.) I did find what I was looking for, in J. Jeremias' 
The_Parables_of_Jesus (2nd revised ed., 1970, Eng. trans. 1972). 
He provides what I think is a useful list, so I'm offering it for
your collective perusal.

He calls these 'the laws of transformation', and lists them (on p. 113 of 
the edition I'm using; abbrv. mine) in summing up the first part of 
the book (which consists of looking at the argument for each of these 
and providing examples):

	1. The translation of the parables into Greek involved an 
	   inevitable change in their meaning.
	
	2. For the same reason representational material is 
	   occasionally 'translated'.

	3. Pleasure in the embellishment of the parables is noticeable 
	   at an early date.
	
	4. Occasionally passages of Scripture and folk-story themes 
	   have influenced the shaping of the material.
	 
	5. Parables which were originally addressed to opponents or 
	   to the crowd have in many cases been applied by the primitive 
	   Church to the Christian community
	
	6. This led to an increasing shift of emphasis to the 
	   hortatory [dictionary def.: 'serving to encourage or urge to 
	   good deeds' ] aspect, esp. from the eschatological to the 
	   hortatory.

	7. The primitive Church related the parables to its own actual 
	   situation, whose chief features were the missionary motive 
	   & the delay of the 'Parousia'; it interpreted and expanded 
	   them with these factors in view.

	8. To an increasing degree the primitive Church interpreted 
	   the parables allegorically with a view to their hortatory use.

	9. The primitive Church made collections of parables, & occasionally 
	   two parables were fused together.
	
	10.The primitive Church provided the parables with a setting, & 
	   this often produced a change in the meaning; in particular, 
	   by the addition of generalizing conclusions, many parables 
	   acquired a universal meaning. 
	
Jeremias also suggests some other lines for looking at relative dating
of the 'logia', such as Palestinian (vs Hellenistic or Roman) settings,
and Aramacisms ('Raca'). 

Is anyone else interested in discussing the noncanonical 'logia'? Since
net.discourse always moves along so much better when one is provocative,
let me ask: 

	If any of these noncanonical versions were shown to be
	closer to Jesus' original words (or, if a transcript
	from the Aramaic were found), would that give Xtians
	cause to change the canon of the NT?

	If any of the noncanonical 'logia' (ex: 'Split the wood, and
	I am there; turn the stone, and you will find me.' ) were shown
	to be authentic (i.e., it were proved that Jesus uttered something of 
	the sort), what difference would that make? Would the fact of their 
	authenticity render them canonical, per se?

Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone

QOTD:

"Become as passers-by."
		Gospel_of_Thomas, attr. to Jesus