The NT simply is not 'mostly a bunch of letters', rather it is 'mostly a bunch of gospels.' And then there are letters, mostly attributed to Paul. The interesting thing is that all of the NT is written in Greek, meaning they address a different audience than Jesus was speaking to.
The Parable of the Talents
- Thread starter Kaitzilla
- Start date
The NT simply is not 'mostly a bunch of letters', rather it is 'mostly a bunch of gospels.' And then there are letters, mostly attributed to Paul. The interesting thing is that all of the NT is written in Greek, meaning they address a different audience than Jesus was speaking to.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I agree.
But you can go further and regard no money as your own in the first place. Then there's no question of anyone borrowing or lending anything.
I now find my pockets are absolutely oozing with other people's money. And I've no idea where any of it comes from, nor why.
Even the audience Jesus spoke to was in Aramaic--not Hebrew.
My name is Andrew Jackson AKA Queen Elizabeth II AKA George Washington. Please deposit any bills or coins you have containing my name and or likeness into your bank account and then deposit into a Paypal. Just PM me your understanding and acceptance of these terms along with a credit card number.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Sure. Just PM me your bank details, credit card number (together with that 3 digit number on the back), your mother's maiden name and the name of your first pet. And the answer to that secret security question - you know the one. Etc, etc. And I'll transfer the funds appropriately.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
As far as the Greek/Hebrew issue goes:
The early Church fathers generally agreed that the gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek, whereas the rest of the New Testament was all originally in Greek. Modern scholars typically preferred the idea that the gospel of Mark came first, and that Matthew is based primarily on it. Recently though, some have started to take the historical claims more seriously. The new view is that Matthew as we know it was composed in Greek, but that the Gospel of the Hebrews (which might have been the text actually written by Matthew) was the main source used in its composition. Our Matthew is certainly not a direct translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, but they do have a lot in common.
We don't have an extant copy of the full Gospel of the Hebrews, but we have commentaries on it that include several excerpts and a total line count. We know it does not include anything about the virgin birth, yet has longer versions of several other sections making it nearly as long in total.
I know that the "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" has a fuller explanation in the gospel of the Hebrews. It explains that the man was lying when he said he kept all the law of Moses, because the law insists that he love his neighbors like himself and he clearly does not love those whom he allowed to go on in poverty when he could easily help them yet chosen not to spend any of his excess wealth to do so.
I don't know if its version of the Parable of the Talents is any different.
The early Church fathers generally agreed that the gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek, whereas the rest of the New Testament was all originally in Greek. Modern scholars typically preferred the idea that the gospel of Mark came first, and that Matthew is based primarily on it. Recently though, some have started to take the historical claims more seriously. The new view is that Matthew as we know it was composed in Greek, but that the Gospel of the Hebrews (which might have been the text actually written by Matthew) was the main source used in its composition. Our Matthew is certainly not a direct translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, but they do have a lot in common.
We don't have an extant copy of the full Gospel of the Hebrews, but we have commentaries on it that include several excerpts and a total line count. We know it does not include anything about the virgin birth, yet has longer versions of several other sections making it nearly as long in total.
I know that the "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" has a fuller explanation in the gospel of the Hebrews. It explains that the man was lying when he said he kept all the law of Moses, because the law insists that he love his neighbors like himself and he clearly does not love those whom he allowed to go on in poverty when he could easily help them yet chosen not to spend any of his excess wealth to do so.
I don't know if its version of the Parable of the Talents is any different.
The old testament had already been translated to greek in the era of the Ptolemaic dynasty overlordhip of Judea. Afaik the main reason was to allow the jewish population to move on to using greek for everyday life in all matters, including religious study. So it would be strange if any texts directed to non-jewish people would be written in jewish, and from the Acts of the Apostles we do know that some apostles tried to preach christianity in Judea as well, but i do not recall any mention of a gospel.
I'd love it if that Gospel to the Hebrews became more mainstream.
I actually hold that the book of Hebrews was the only book written in Hebrew, and that it was written by Paul. The majority opinion, however, holds that Hebrews was written by someone else (in Greek), because the grammatical constructs are very different. I say, that is because Paul wrote it in a different language--not because a different author wrote it. I mean after all, who is the target audience?
Also, I hold that First Peter was written in Jerusalem, but that the target audience was pretty much everyone BUT Jerusalem. Makes sense, since after all, you write a letter to someone whom is far away; not right there with you. Thus I Peter was written in Greek. I get this primarily from the first couple verses in the book, plus something in the last chapter.
Also, I hold that First Peter was written in Jerusalem, but that the target audience was pretty much everyone BUT Jerusalem. Makes sense, since after all, you write a letter to someone whom is far away; not right there with you. Thus I Peter was written in Greek. I get this primarily from the first couple verses in the book, plus something in the last chapter.
Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,411
Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one? You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Greek was the language of the educated. If one was writing to a broad audience, one would use Greek. Also, Hebrew was a fairly restricted language. Paul could have written in it, but many of Jesus' disciples probably could not. As noted above, Matthew, which has a clearly Jewish audience, was likely translated. Indeed there are indications that some letters were rendered into good Greek, which means they are not direct from the source. Compare 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
This is an interesting position. If true, Hebrews was probably abridged to fit. IIRC it is one of two books (Acts?) that exactly fits one scroll, written in Greek. From what I am told, it is also excellent Greek, much better than Paul's normal style.
J
Obviously. Just as obvious as that Jesus wasn't interested in reaching a broad audience. He was interested in the imminent Kingdom of Heaven. Which then, oddly, didn't appear that imminent. Hence the switch in audience, which was a crucial decision in early Christianity.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Actually an analogous, in fact nearly identical, parable appears in Luke as the parable of the minas. A title that handily resolves whether the servants were given skills or money.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
To the contrary. Jesus was clearly aware of the larger audience. His purpose was to train messengers, rather then go himself.
Imminent is another issue. If you look at the Matthew 24 sermon, he has the famous phrase, "this generation will not pas away." Since he was talking about end things (eschatology), that seems odd. However, the destruction of the temple and killing of half the Jewish nation does fit the bill.
On top of that is the non linear nature of all his teachings. Multiple correct interpretations are not only possible, but expected. This brings me to...
Does it? Or does it mean more general resources? One truism is that God does not called the equipped, he equips the called.
J
Errr, no. He was certainly aware of 'the larger audience', but he simply wasn't interested: 'don't go unto the gentiles'. His personal vision was to save the Jews (including Samaritans), rather than the Christian vision to 'save all mankind.' In modern terms we would call this an apparently very successful spin on Jesus' original message.
'This generation shall not pass away before these things have come to pass'. That would be referring to the imminence of the Kingdom. As we know now, this didn't happen.
Which is neither here nor there. The meaning of talents as skills would not be know yet in Jesus' day, I reckon. Minas would be. So, yes it does.
It seems to me you make the classic error of looking at Jesus' teachings (we have no way knowing if there was anything linear in them) through modern eyes. In particular modern Christian eyes. Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew. Anything that has become common currency in Christianity since would be unknown to the Jew that was Jesus.
(One example would be the doctrine that Jesus instituted all 7 sacraments while on Earth. Considering that Jesus, when alive, would not even have a clue about what sacraments were, that is quite a claim.)
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
No, we do not know that. You are giving this a very Greek influenced interpretation, linear and literal.
The judgment of the chapter could be the Romans destroying the Temple and killing half the inhabitants. That event fits the descriptions of the chapter. If he were truly talking about the end of the world, running to the hills would have no value.
A less literal interpretation also works. The generation could refer to his disciples, ie the Church. The kingdom comes once for everyone.
J
Lots of issues I have with this, but the short of it is, I have to go along with Jayhawk (do good things ever come out of Lawrence?).
First, your claim that the things of Matthew 24 didn't happen in that generation. They did.
Second, while the falsehood of interpreting the Bible in light of modern things is a valid one, the thing with the talents is not one of them. The reason we today call talents God-given abilities we are born with--that comes from this very parable. Everyone knows it's a parable, and everyone knows the significant unit of money stands for something which GOD regards as precious. And the gifts you are born with are actually more valuable than the money. This has been widely accepted, and that is how we have the word today.
Third, the real reason Jesus was not Christian is because the term "Christian" literally means "little Christ". It was actually a derisive term. Of course Jesus can't be a little Christ--He's the Christ. The original. His Jewish ancestry was simply to reach people. So if the Jewish religion takes another direction, that is Judaism straying from Him--not Him straying from Judaism. He is not a follower of Judaism: He is King of the Jews.
Similar threads
