jewish-christian gospels recovered Mediterranean anthropology and sets the parable in the context of poor
Galilean peasants. The starting point of this suggestion is that in the
Mediterranean culture, where Jesus and his first followers lived, the idea
of limited good was one of the most important culturally shared values.
Since the amount of good was restricted, it followed that everyone who
tried to get more for him/herself was inevitably stealing from others.
Good persons did not try to become rich at the expense of others. From
the viewpoint of the idea of limited good, both the man who spent his
money with the flute girls and the servant who multiplied his trade were
morally dubious characters.
According to Biblical law (Deut :–), it was not allowed to charge
interest on loans. Interest is not directly mentioned in the Matthean
version but it is certainly implied, and in Luke we have a more direct
reference to making more money with money. Furthermore, in later
rabbinic tradition, burying was considered a perfectly responsible way
of taking care of someone else’s money.^95
TheversionthatwehaveintheGospel of the Hebrewsseems to be in
accordance with these values. It accepts with joy the servant who simply
kept the allotted money in a safe place. The servant who multiplied the
money is rebuked and the servant who spent the money of his master
with harlots and flute players is cast into prison. Thus, the parable that
was recorded in theGospel of the Hebrewswould make perfect sense in
the context of ancient Mediterranean culture. Should we then perhaps
regard it as the version that comes closest to the original parable of Jesus?
Consequently, could theGospel of the Hebrewshave preserved an earlier
version of the parable than Matthew and Luke?
Inmyview,thisisnotthecaseforseveralreasons.First,itisverydif-
ficult to argue for a tradition-historical line of development from “more
Mediterranean” to “less Mediterranean” within such a short time span as
we would have to presume between the Matthean/Lukan version(s) and
the version in theGospel of the Hebrews.Becausetheoverallcultureisthe
same, there have to be some specific reasons for the development. Nev-
ertheless, these cultural considerations show that the Eusebian version
of the parable is perfectly possible and that there is no need to presume
any mistake on Eusebius’ part. The parable in theGospel of the Hebrews
probably praised the servant who simply hid his talent.
(^95) Thus, for instance, Luz , –, referring to BM a.