chapter three
Second, as we have already seen, some linguistic details suggest that
text that Eusebius quoted had connections to both Matthew and Luke.
This points rather towards a post-synoptic harmonizing tradition.
Third, the characterization in the Matthean and Lukan versions—
especially in the light of the idea of limited good—seem to belong to the
same group of morally questionable parables as, for instance, the Parable
of Dishonest Manager (Luke :–) and the Parable of the Unjust Judge
(Luke :–).^96 All these parables use morally questionable characters
as figures who exemplify something of what God requires of men. Fur-
thermore, in the case of the Parable of the Talents/Mina (in Matthew and
Luke), it is not only the praising of the smartest businessman that may
have raised the eyebrows of the hearers but also the characterization of
the master who obviously stands for God: he is hard and merciless (σκλη-
ρ!ςin Matthew;α7στηρ!ςinLuke)who“reapswherehedidnotsowand
gathers where he did not scatter.” These characteristics are hardly ideal for
a farmer who wishes to live in peace with his neighbors in a world which
presumes the idea of limited good. Because of these morally dubious fea-
tures, it is easier to understand a tradition-historical development from
the Matthean/Lukan version to the parable in theGospel of the Hebrews
which is more compatible with the common values of ancient Mediter-
ranean culture.
Fourth, if we attribute to theGospel of Hebrewsboth the Eusebian
version of the Parable of the Talents and the parable about three rich men
in Origen’s Latin commentary on Matthew (see Chapter .), we can see
that both these parables are against being or becoming rich at the expense
of others.^97
(^96) Thus, Luz , , who thinks that these parables may well be derived from
historical Jesus.
(^97) Interestingly, this line of critique resonates also with theGospel of Thomas.Logion
concludes: “Businessmen and merchants [will] not enter the places of my father.” I will
deal with Thomas’ relation to Jewish-Christian gospel more in Chapter .. However,
at this point it can already be noted that the passage in Origen’s LatinCommentary on
Matthewis closely connected toGos. Thom. , and thatGos. Thom. and possibly
also the previous saying seem to link up with the passage to be treated next, a
quotationinEusebius’Theophania Syriaca, which also comes from theGospel of the
Hebrews. Thus, there is a cluster of four sayings in theGospel of Thomas(–) which
seems to have parallels in Jewish-Christian fragments that this volume attributes to the
Gospel of Hebrews. As will become clear in the following chapters, the reason for these
connections is that both theGospel of the Hebrewsand theGospel of Thomasare drawing
on similar post-synoptic, pre-Diatessaronic harmonizing gospel traditions, and that these
two gospels come from the same cultural sphere where riches and businessmen were
criticized.