Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
In a previous article, ‘Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse’, I discussed certain features of the tradition-history of three parousia parables: the Thief (Matt. 24. 43 f. par. Luke 12. 39 f.; Gosp. Thomas 21 b, 103), the Watching Servants (Luke 12. 35–38; cf. Matt. 24. 42; Mark 13. 33–37;Gosp. Thomas 21 b, 103), and the Servant in Authority (Matt. 24. 45–51 par. Luke 12. 42–48). In the cases of the Thief and the Watching Servants, there is remarkably good evidence outside the Gospels for the popularity of these parables in the early church (1 Thess. 5. 2; 2 Pet. 3. 10; Rev. 3. 3, 20; 16. 15; Did. 16. 1), and on the basis of this evidence, as well as the Gospels, I suggested that the forms in which these parables and allusions to them occur can best be explained by a process of ‘deparabolization’, in which the narrative form of a parable is partly or wholly replaced by more direct application of the imagery of the parable to the hearers or readers, as metaphor or simile. Both because of their extensive use in early Christian paraenesis and because of their amenable subject-matter, the parables of 130 the Thief and, especially, the Watching Servants were subject to considerable deparabolization.
[1] N.T.S. 23 (1976–1977), pp. 162–76.Google Scholar
[2] Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are included in the parallels listed by Resch, A., Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien 3 (T.U. X. 3, Leipzig, 1895), pp. 333–8.Google ScholarNo. 4 is briefly discussed in Smitmans, A., Das Gleichnis vom Dieb’, in Wort Gottes in der Zeit (Festschrift for K. H. Schelkle), ed. Feld, H. and Nolte, J. (Düsseldorf, 1973), p. 55 n. 55, p. 65 n. 102.Google Scholar
[3] Translation in Charles, R. H., The Ascension of Isaiah (London, 1900), p. 35. This verse is extant only in the Ethiopic version.Google Scholar
[4] 3. 14 a, cf. Matt. 26. 31 par. Mark 14. 27: 3. 14 b, cf. Matt. 27. 62–66; Gosp. Peter 8. 28–30: 3. 16, cf. Matt. 28. 2;Gosp. Peter 10. 39 f.: 3. 18, cf. Matt. 28. 19; Mark 16. 15 f.: 11. 2, cf. Matt. 13. 55: 11. 2–5, cf. Matt. 1. 18–24: 11. 15, cf. Matt. 2. 21–23. The section 11. 2–22, which is in the Ethiopic but not in the Latin and Slavonic versions, has sometimes therefore been thought a later addition to the Ascension of Isaiah, but for the probability that it belongs to the original work, see Charles, op. cit., pp. xxii–xxiv;Google ScholarVaillant, A., ‘Un apocryphe pseudo-bogomile: la Vision d'Isaïe’. Revue des études slaves 42 (1963), pp. 111 f. The author of 11. 2–22 plainly did not know Luke's infancy narrative, and so, if 3. 13–4. 18 is from the same author, as is probable, it is certainly independent of the Gospel of Luke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (ET, London, 1972 3), p. 54 n. 18; Bauckham, art. cit., p.174.Google ScholarAgainst Schneider, G., Parusiegleichnisse im Lukas-Evangelium (Stuttgart, 1975), pp. 34 f.Google Scholar
[6] Perhaps it might be suggested that Asc. Isa. 4. 16 preserves the original context of the saying, whence Luke has inserted it into the parable. To this I would reply: (a) The reference to ‘watching’ in Asc. Isa. 4. 16 comes from the parable, not from Luke 12. 37 b alone, (b) In Asc. Isa. 4. 16 the saying is hardly intelligible except as an allusion to material familiar from another context, (c) Sib. Or. ii. 177–183 (quoted below) similarly alludes to the parable of the Watching Servants in a context like that of Asc. Isa. 4, but its allusions are to other parts of the parable.Google Scholar
[7] The addition of ‘in this world’ recalls Gosp. Thomas 21 b, ‘watch for the world’, but the latter is a gnosticizing interpretation: Schrage, W., Das Verháltnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen (Z.N. W. Beiheft XXIX, Berlin, 1964), p. 68.Google Scholar
[8] Bauckham, , art. cit., pp. 171–4.Google Scholar
[9] Text in Geffcken, J., Die Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig, 1902), pp. 35 f. This text should probably be dated to the mid-second century.Google Scholar
[10] Translation in New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Hennecke, E., Schneemelcher, W., Wilson, R. McL. (London, 1963, 1965), 2, 714.Google Scholar
[11] Cf. the paraphrase of Mark 13. 17 (par.) in lines 190–3.Google Scholar
[12] Bauckham, , art. cit., p. 167.Google Scholar
[13] Text in G.C.S. 27, pp. 54 f. The work dates from the end of the second century.Google Scholar
[14] The words διά τοūτο καì ύμεîς Őμοιοι γίνεσωε άνωρώποις (cf. Luke 12. 36: καì ύμεīς Őμοιοι őνωρώποις) look as though they have been influenced by Matt. 24. 44: διά το
το καì ύμεīς γίνεσωε ἅτοιμοι.Google Scholar
[15] Bauckham, art. cit., pp. 167 f. This is in effect also how Mark 13. 35 f. is explained by Dupont, J., ‘La parabole du maître qui rentre dans la nuit (Me 13, 34–36)’, in Mélanges Bibliques (Festschrift for B. Rigaux), ed. Descamps, A. and de Halleux, A. (Gembloux, 1970), p. 106, though he does not of course use the term ‘deparabolization’.Google Scholar
[16] Text in G.C.S. 37, p. 191. The work was completed in 377.Google Scholar
[17] Jude 4 (probably); 2 Pet. 2. 1. The fact that the family of Jesus were called οì δεσπόσυνοι (Eusebius, H.E. I. vii. 14) implies that Jesus was called ò δεσπότης in some Jewish Christian circles. The word is used in a Synoptic parable only in P75 at Luke 13. 25.Google Scholar
[18] Also in the Greek translation of Acts of Thomas 146 (see Smitmans, art. cit., p. 65 and n. 102) and presupposed in the Bohairic version of Matt. 24. 43 (see Schrage, op. cit., p. 68 n. 6).Google Scholar
[19] Resch, A., Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis untersucht (T.U. N.F. XII, Leipzig, 1904), pp. 405 f. His argument is rejected by Smitmans, art. cit., p. 55 n. 55.Google Scholar
[20] Translation from the Ethiopic version, in New Testament Apocrypha I, 221. (The Coptic version here is similar, but shorter.)Google Scholar
[21] It is possible that Luke 13. 25 is a more drastically deparabolized version of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, as Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1936), pp. 172 f., argued in effect.Google Scholar
[22] Bauckham, , art. cit., p. 166.Google Scholar
