From: "Antonio Jerez" To: Cc: "William E. Arnal" Subject: Re: Thomas and allegory Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:08:54 +0100 Bill Arnal wrote: >On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Antonio Jerez wrote: > >> Why "Period", Steve? What makes you so certain that the >> parables in Thomas are NOT allegorical at all? I took a close >> look again at the relevant parables in my colour synopsis this >> evening and found that there is little reason to claim as >> emphatically as you are that ALL parables in Thomas are >> non-allegorical. I started with the Sower and found that >> Thomas 9 is just as much allegorical (or nonallegorical) as >> Mark, Matthew or Luke. In the parable itself all versions are Bill replied: >I hate to inject my own note of nastiness here, but I think, >really, that it actually IS pointless to argue with you on >this topic Antonio. I will qualify this by saying that on >other topics I have very much enjoyed -- and benefitted from >-- discussions and even disagreements with you. But on this >issue it just seems that we are unable to have a reasonable >conversation, and I can see why Steve threw up his hands >earlier. You just have such a COMMITTMENT to the >Thomas-dependence view, for whatever reason, that you simply >deny even the most obvious features of the text in order to >maintain your position makes further conversation >impossible. I think I can stomach a little nastiness. No problem about that, since I can be nasty myself at times. But the simple fact is that I am asking some questions that may be to elementary for your taste but not to a beginner like me. I have learned during these years of study not to take for granted the conventional wisdom of scholars with doctors and professors hats - specially not in exegetics. >> very alike. The message is the same. The only reason anybody >> would call Thomas less allegorical than the synoptics would >> be simply because Thomas leaves out the explanation of the >> parable - which isn't surprising at all given Thomas tendency >> not to explain anything. > >Whether or not Thomas has such a tendency (and he doesn't, >exactly), the absence of the explanation makes the parable >here NON-ALLEGORICAL. Duh. You can say, "there's a reason >for this," but the basic fact remains. What we have here is >a story about some seeds -- those which fall on bad ground, >which are many, bear no fruit; those which fall on good >ground bear surprisingly high yields. If the same story had >appeared in Mark WITHOUT the explanation, it would be >difficult to determine that Mark had read it allegorically. >But since Mark DOES have the explanation we know that's how >he DID read it. I didn't know that the definition of an allegorical parable included the notion that the interpretation of the parable MUST be appended to the allegory. If that is the case we could just as well say that Matthew's parable about the Ten Virgins is not an allegory since he doesn't add the interpretation. But in spite of Mattew not giving us a clear interpretation most scholars are dead sure that this parable is meant as an allegory. The absence of the interpretation in Thomas DOES NOT in itself tell us that the parable proper is not an allegory or was not meant as an allegory from the beginning. Besides, we wouldn't really have needed the interpretative part in the synoptics to guess that this is a jewish allegorical mashal. The idea of God as a sower and him sowing his word to the people is a wellknown idea in other jewish writings of the time. I think 4 Ezra among others has a parallel. >> I also took a look at the Vineyard - Thomas 65 - and >> found much the same pattern there. There is nothing >> as far as I see that says that the parable in Thomas is >> totally unallegorical. Basically it is just as allegorical as >> the version in Mark. Thomas leaves out the last allegorical >> detail about the fate of the tenant farmers. > >Thomas leaves out any description of the work the owner >outs into vineyard, and any description of the moral >qualities of the people in the story. He also fails to >comment on the fate of the tenants, and fails to include any >biblical proof-text which identifies the "rejection" here >with Jesus. The absence of these features make it >impossible for us to conclude that Jesus is intended in >Thomas' version. Luke also leaves out any "description of the work the owner outs into the vineyard". And I don't know what your argument that Thomas "leaves out any description of the moral qualities of the people in the story" amounts to. In contrast to the synoptics Thomas explicitely claims that the owner is "good". And since the owner is good the way the tenants treat his son talks for itself. Doesn't it? Thomas also includes the mention of the "son". As early a christological designation as any. I do not think HJ called himself the "son" or referred to himself as "the son" in any parable. The early church did that. >> This parable can in its proper Jewish context ONLY >> be understood as an allegory about Israel, its leaders, >> the fate of the prophets and the fate of Jesus (the son). >> The parable started its life as an allegory and has only >> a meaning as an allegory. > >Well, I'm glad Antonio is able to provide theological advice >to first-century Jews. This aside, however, and in an >IMproper Jewish context, it is clear that Thomas favours >stories which emphasize wise selection and decisive action. >The tenants, in the context of Thomas, behave in an >exemplary way in much the same fashion as the merchant who >discovers a pearl or the assassin who practices before he >commits murder. Any firstcentury Jew knew what "the Vineyard" stood for. I do not know what the proto-gnostics (non-jewish) made out of it. But given the fact that Thomas calls the vineyards owner good it is hard to see how Thomas would take the tenants actions as something to emulate. >> As for the Great Supper, Thomas 64, I think Mark >> conceded to much when he said that "appears >> markedly less allegorical than Matthew's or Luke's". >> It is true compared to Matthew, but certainly not >> compared to Luke. Luke is on the whole about as >> allegorical or nonallegorical as Thomas. > >Hey Antonio. . .do you know what an allegory IS? Hint: the >conclusion to #64 is "businessmen and merchants will not >enter my father's kingdom," or some such thing. That means >that the various individuals whose actions are recounted in >this parable are EXAMPLES of this inability. Therefore this >is an example story, sometimes known as a parable. It >doesn't matter, in this case, whether Thomas has a lot of >details or a few -- it is NOT an allegory. He provides us >the application himself, and the application is >non-allegorical. OK. Thomas applies a clearer application to the parable. Which isn't surprising given Thomas usual distaste for merchants and businessmen. But I do not think I agree with you that mashals can not be example storys and allegories at the same time. A jewish mashal could take many forms; example story, example story with allegory, riddle... Best wishes Antonio