Once I realized that the FDS doctrine was scripturally ridiculous, every other thing, I began to critically question. Everytime I read or heard "the Slave" says this or that, I used to inwardly roll my eyes and see the stupidity of the whole FDS belief. When you look at their "discretion", I have to agree with Gopher that they were quite "discreet" when it came to the UN debacle.
QFR Regarding How The "Slave" Is "Discreet"
by minimus 33 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Leolaia
minimus....It's the kind of thing you learn from knowing Greek and reading the works of "Bible scholars". Here is a detailed rundown of the evidence:
1) The language of the parable is clearly borrowed from the story of Joseph in Genesis 39-47 LXX and in the broader literature. First of all, Joseph is both faithful and wise. Pharaoh tells Joseph: "Since God has made all this known to you, there is no one as discerning (sunetóteros) and wise (phronimóteros) as you" (41:39 LXX). In Psalm 105:21-22 LXX we read that Joseph "instructed" (paideusai) the elders of Egypt and made them "wise" (sóphisai). Josephus (Antiquities 2.9) applied no less than six synonyms for wisdom to Joseph. Acts 7:10 says that God gave Joseph "grace and wisdom (kharin kai sophian)". Joseph was also faithful. He acted on what God had revealed by preparing the Egyptians for famine (Genesis 41:47-49), and he also believed in his brothers, telling them "I will believe (pisteuthésontai) your sayings" (32:20 LXX). In the parable, the slave (doulos in Matthew 24:45) is depicted as both "faithful" (pistos) and "wise" (phronimos) in Matthew 24:45 and Luke 12:42. Joseph was also a slave as well, sold by his brothers into slavery (cf. Genesis 39:17, 19; 41:12). Although the word pais is used in the LXX, doulos occurs in other sources of the time (cf. Testament of Joseph 1:5, 11:2-3, 13:6-8, 15:2, Philo of Alexandria, De Josepho 35, 47, 51, 66), e.g. "It was appropriately said that the man was sold ... becoming a slave (doulos) instead of a free man.... Accordingly the young man, having been conducted into Egypt and become the slave of eunuch, gave in a few days many proofs of virtue and excellence of disposition" (De Josepho, 35-37).
2) In the parable, the slave "gives rations of grain (didonai to sitometrion)" to the people at the "appointed time" (en kairó) as Luke 12:42 puts it. This exactly how Joseph is described in the literature. The "appointed time" in question is the seven years of lean (Genesis 41:53-57). The verb sitometreó occurs only twice in the LXX and both times it has Joseph as its subject:
"And Joseph rationed out grain (esitrometrei) to his father, his brothers, and his father's entire household, grain (siton) according to each person. There was no grain however in the whole region because the famine was severe; both Egypt and Canaan wasted away because of the famine. Joseph collected all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan in payment for the grain they were buying, and he rationed out grain (esitometrei) to them" (Genesis 47:12-16 LXX).
The use of the verb didonai "give" in Luke also recalls the use of sitodosias "gift of grain" in Genesis 42:19, 33 LXX. Compare also Josephus who wrote that Joseph "ordered his steward to give them their rations of grain (ton te siton autois dounai memetrémenon)" and he "gave them grain" (ton siton autois didontos) (Antiquities 2.124, 189). Similarly, Joseph and Asenath describes Joseph as "giving grain (sitodotei) to the whole land" (4:8) and he declares: "I will go to my grain giving (sitodosian) and I will give grain (dosó siton) to all men" (26:3). Finally, Artapantus wrote that Joseph "discovered rationing (metra heurein)" and on account of these things he was greatly loved by the Egyptians" (apud Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 9.23.3). The use of sitometrion in Luke thus clearly has Joseph in view, as he was the person who was rationing out grain at the appointed time.
3) The description of Joseph's promotion in the LXX is identical to the language used in Matthew and Luke for the promotion of the faithful and wise slave, indicating yet again that the parable uses Joseph as a model for the figure of the slave:
Genesis 39:4-5 LXX: "For being well-pleasing, Joseph found favor in the eyes of his master (kuriou) and he placed him (katestésen auton) over his household (epi tou oikou autou), and he entrusted to his care everything that he owned. From the time he was placed (katastathénai) over his household (auton epi tou oikou autou) and over all that he owned, he became a blessing to his master (kuriou) in all his possessions (en pasi tois huparkhousin autó), both in the house and in the field".
Psalm 105:21 LXX: "He placed him (katestésen auton) as master of his house (kurion tou oikou autou) and as ruler of all his possessions (arkhonta pasés tés kteséós autou)".
Matthew 24:45-57: "Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom the master (ho kurios) places (katastésen) over the members of his household (epi tés oiketeias autou) to give them their food at the appointed time? It will be good for that slave whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will place him (katastései auton) over all his possessions (epi pasin tois huparkhousin autou)".
Luke 12:42-44: "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom the master (ho kurios) places (katastései) over his attendants (epi tés therapeias) to give them their food rations at the appointed time? It will be good for that slave whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will place him (katastései auton) over all his possessions (epi pasin tois huparkhousin autou)".
This language is very distinctive: (1) the subject kurios "master" (2) kathistémi "placing" (3) a servant (4) epi "over" (5) his household (tou oikou autou // tés oiketeias autou) and (6) "all his possessions" (tois huparkhousin autó // tois huparkhousin autou). Note also that Luke describes the master placing the slave "over his attendants (therapeias autou)", and this is another word that is borrowed out of the story of Joseph in the LXX: "When the news reached Pharaoh's palace that Joseph's brothers had come, Pharaoh and all his attendants (therapeia autou) were pleased" (45:16 LXX). Thus the language comes stock-load-and-barrelled from the OT story of Joseph. In fact, the same language was used in many other references to Joseph at the time (cf. Jubilees 39:3, Philo of Alexandria, De Josepho, 37-38, Testament of Joseph 2:1, Josephus, Antiquities 2.39). For instance, Philo wrote that Joseph was "placed as overseer of his house" (kathistato tés oikias epitropos). But the most interesting use of this language occurs in Acts, for this passage was written by the same author as the parable in Luke 12:
Luke 12:42-44: "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom the master places (katastései) over his attendants (epi tés therapeias) to give them their grain rations (sitometrion) at the appointed time? It will be good for that slave whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will place him (katastései auton) over (epi) all his possessions (pasin tois huparkhousin autou)".
Acts 7:9-12: "Because the patriarchs were jealous of Joseph, they sold him off to Egypt. But God was with him and rescued him from all his troubles. He gave Joseph wisdom and enabled him to gain the goodwill of Pharaoh king of Egypt; so he placed him (katestésen auton) ruler over Egypt (ep' Aigupton) and his whole household (holon ton oikon autou). Then a famine struck all Egypt and Canaan, bringing great suffering, and our fathers could not find food. When Jacob heard that there was grain (sitia) in Egypt, he sent our fathers on their first visit".
4) The final element that connects the parable to the story of Joseph is the theme of the absent master. This is an allusion to the story of Potipher's wife. The incident occurred when the master was gone from the household and parallel language is again used between the two stories:
Genesis 39:11-12, 16 LXX: "One day he went into the house to attend to his duties, and none of the household servants was inside. She caught him by his cloak and said, 'Come to bed with me!' But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house... She kept his cloak beside her until his master came home (heós élthen ho kurios eis ton oikon autou).
Luke 12:43: "Blessed is that slave who is doing so when his master comes (élthon ho kurios autou)".
In the narrative, Potipher's wife claimed that the slave was misbehaving while the master was absent. The version presented in Josephus of what Potipher's wife told her husband bears even closer similarity to what is in the parable:
Josephus, Antiquities 2.56-57: "Oh husband, may you not live another day if you do not punish (kolason) the wicked slave (ponéron doulon) who desired to defile our marriage bed, who has not remembered to have discretion (esóphronésen) in our household (ton hémeteron oikon) .... He contrived to abuse (epebouleusen hubrisai) your wife at the time of the festival, watching closely when you would be absent (tén sén apousian paraphulaxas)".
Matthew 24:46-50: "Who then is the faithful and discreet (phronimóteros) slave (doulos), whom the master places over the members of his household (tés oiketeias autou) to give them their food at the appointed time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns....But if that slave is evil (kakos doulos) and says to himself, 'My master is delaying (khronizei ho kurios),' and he then begins to beat (arkhétai tuptein) his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect (prosdoka) him and at an hour he is not aware of".
In both cases, the wicked slave waits until the master is away and then abuses the members of the household, in this case, the master's wife. Whereas the slave in the parable is supposed to be mindful of discretion, the wicked slave "has not remembered to have discretion". He "watches closely" (paraphulassó) when the master is supposed to be away (apousias) and then "contrives a plan" (epibouleuó) for misbehavior, whereas the faithful are supposed to "keep watch" (grégoreite) for the arrival of the master for they do not know at what "watch" (phulaké) of night he is coming (Matthew 24:42-43). In Genesis 39:14 LXX, Potipher's wife says on the behalf of "the ones in the household" (tous ontas en té oikia) that Joseph came to "berate us" (empaizein hémin), which corresponds to the description of the wicked slave beating his fellow servants, "members of his household" (tés oiketeias). The master's reaction in both stories is the same: he whips the slave with "many lashes" and sends him "to the place with the unbelievers" in Luke 12:46-47, and Potipher reacts with anger and casts him into prison in Genesis 39:19-20. According to the Testament of Joseph, Joseph was "beaten" (tuptesthai) as a slave (2:3, 13:9, 14:1-2, the same verb that occurs in Luke 12:45 to refer to what the wicked slave did to the other slaves), and he was whipped in prison just as the wicked slave was whipped in the parable:
Testament of Joseph 8:4: "She held onto the garment, and brought false accusation against me. Her husband came and threw me in prison (enebale me eis phulakén) in his own household, and then the next day he whipped me (téi hexés mastixas me) and sent me to Pharaoh's prison".
Luke 12:46-48: "The master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces (dikhotomései), and assign him a place with the unbelievers. "And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes (darésetai pollas), but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging (axia plégón), will receive but few lashes (darésetai oligas)".
There is one other detail about Joseph in the Testament of Joseph that closely resembles the parable. Denying that he committed such misdeeds, Joseph described himself in terms that are the exact opposite of the wicked slave in the parable:
Testament of Joseph 3:5-6: "If my master went abroad (epedidéi), I drank no wine (oinon ouk epinon); for three-day periods I would take no food (elambanon mou tén diaitan) but give it (edidoun autén) to the poor and the ill. I would awaken early and pray to the Lord, weeping over the Egyptian women of Memphis because she annoyed me exceedingly and relentlessly".
Matthew 24:45-50: "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them (dounai autois) their food (tén trophen) at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is delaying,' and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat (esthié) and drink with drunkards (piné meta tón methuontón). The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of".
Here is the motif of eating and drinking alcohol while the master is away. Joseph denies that he drank wine while the master was abroad, and instead of eating he would give the food to the needy -- echoing the role of Joseph as the dispenser of food to the household and to Egypt. Thus virtually every detail in the parable has an analogue to the story of Joseph, whether in the LXX or in Jewish tradition.
-
minimus
WOW! Thank you for that detailed explanation.
Just a couple of thoughts--- quoting from "spurious" texts doesn't "prove" the assertion. I've never read any other commentary that suggests what you say.
But, what you've researched makes sense and I always find your research fascinating!
-
Leolaia
Actually it is a "spurious" argument to disqualify noncanonical texts are sources just because they are noncanonical. There are many cases in the NT of an author drawing on a noncanonical text or on a noncanonical tradition (see for instance [1] and [2] and [3] for starters). The close parallels in wording with the LXX in numerous places are sufficient to show that the OT story of Joseph lay before the mind of person(s) who wrote the parable of the faithful and wise servant. The parallels in extracanonical sources indicate that the authors probably drew on other traditions about Joseph as well. The scenario in the parable is much closer to the haggadaic expanded versions in Josephus, the Testament of Joseph, and in rabbinical tradition than in the bare bones account in Genesis. That doesn't necessarily mean that the author was dependent on these specific sources but that he drew from the same kind of tradition.
I've never read any other commentary that suggests what you say.
There are many commentaries and articles on this, e.g. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 1, Genesis to Deuteronomy, p. 221; Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Luke, 1902, p. 332; B. T. D Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels: A Critical Study, 1937, p. 157; Paul Gaechter, Das Matthaus Evangelium: Ein Kommentar, 1963, p. 796; Johann Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, vol. 1, p. 506, C. F. Evans, Saint Luke, 1990, p. 336, Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthaus (Mt 18-25), 1997, p. 462; Dale Alison, The Intertextual Jesus, 2000, pp. 87-92, etc. Evans writes, for instance: "Behind this language may lie the figure of Joseph, the Jewish model of the wise one (phronimos: prudent), who was set by Pharaoh over his household (therapeia, v. 42; cf. Gen. 45:16; 41:33, 39f.; Ps. 105:21), and who dispenses supplies (Gen 47:12-14, sitometrein, only there in the LXX)" (p. 336).
-
fahrvegnugen
Interesting theory Leolaia--and who knows--it might even be correct. I would simply like to point out that those Greek words and phrases are among some of the most common and ubiquitous in the language. Verbs such as kathisthmi (set, place) and it's various forms are every bit as common in Greek as "set" and "place" are in English. I wonder if this explanation is reading too much into the fact that some of the words and phrases are the same or similar. One big difference, Joseph's "master" never went anywhere. I don't know for a fact, but my gut instinct tells me that if you find other descriptions from Greek-speaking Jews describing a servant who is made house-steward, you would find the same verbs, adjectives and phraseology employed.
-
Leolaia
fahrvegnugen....The situation is not of a stray coincidence between common words in any single parallel but the whole cluster of both common and RARE words and phrases in the short parable which pertain to the story of Joseph in Genesis 39-47 LXX, which are similar not just in isolation but in grammatical form and pragmatic reference. Joseph is a "slave", both Joseph and the parabolic slave are described as phronimos, both Joseph and the parabolic slave "give rations of grain" (sitometrein being an especially rare and distinctive term) at a particular allotted time (with time being a crucial element of both stories), both Joseph and the parabolic slave are promoted in near identical language, i.e. (1) a kurios + katastésen (note the same verbal form) + a slave + epi + oikos-word (the variant in Luke uses therapeias, a term found also in Genesis 39-47 LXX to refer to those in Pharaoh's household) and (2) preposition + pas "all" + tois huparkhousin (dative) + autó/auton (with reference to the kurios). Note that it isn't just a single description of the promotion but TWO statements that very closely resemble the description of Joseph's promotion in Genesis LXX. Both stories also refer to the slave performing his duties while the master is away and refer to the master returning in similar language (élthen ho kurios // élthon ho kurios). Both stories discuss a slave that is (accused of) mistreating the members of the household (e.g. Joseph came to "berate us" PLURAL, i.e. "the ones in the household" in Genesis 39:14 LXX) and both stories relate his subsequent punishment. It's when you take all of this together that it is clear that it isn't a matter of a chance similarity between generalities but something much more specific. The similarity extends on several levels (lexical, grammatical, situational) and involves more than just a general situation of a slave being promoted as house-steward. Nor would one require that the author slavishly had to copy the phraseology and plot exactly in order to have been allusive to the story of Joseph....he had the freedom as an author to adapt the story to the point he was making, but the adaptation reveals multiple points of contact with the original source.
One big difference, Joseph's "master" never went anywhere.
That's not really the case....even in Genesis 39:16 LXX it is said that the incident with Potipher's wife occurred before Joseph's master "came home" (élthen eis ton oikon autou), implying at least that he was not there at the house and only later came there. As I already pointed out, by the first century AD this story was commonly read as implying that indeed Potipher had gone away from the house -- either going to a festival in the city (as it is in Josephus) or "going abroad" (as it is in the Testament of Joseph).
-
fahrvegnugen
Leolaia - a few thoughts in response. Again I must stress how truly generic most of these phrases are: élthen ho kurios, means simply "the master came," epi pasin tois uparxousin autou katasthsei, "he will appoint over all his property", katesthsen, "he appointed" (katesthsen and katasthsei are the same word, only different tenses--aorist and future respectively). The use of the verb sitometrew, "to measure out grain," in Genesis is intriguing and probably the best argument in favor of this theory, since Luke does use the noun sitometrion, "a measure of grain" in his account.
Obviously, slavery was virtually a universal institution in the ancient world. It's my understanding that every household (oikos) would have a slave (doulos) who had proved his worth and would be appointed (kathisthmi) as house-steward (oikonomos), with responsibility to administer his master's (kurios) estate. These words and terminology are found together throughout Greek literature, thus I honestly don't think they warrant any special conclusion one way or another. My biggest problem with the theory is that there are some large inconsistencies, between the two stories:
Genesis 39:16 LXX it is said that the incident with Potiphar's wife occurred before Joseph's master "came home " ( élthen eis ton oikon autou ), implying at least that he was not there at the house and only later came there. As I already pointed out, by the first century AD this story was commonly read as implying that indeed Potiphar had gone away from the house
If we accept the above, then this would mean that Joseph's master was Potiphar rather than Pharaoh, which means that his master returned before he even began to distribute the "food in due season." This explanation thus makes no sense at all--Potiphar came and found Joseph doing what? and appointed him over what? If we take Pharaoh to be Joseph's master, who appointed him to 'measure out grain in due season,' then we have a closer parallel but are still left with the fact that Pharaoh never went away somewhere else and then came back to check up on him, nor did he further appoint him over additional 'belongings' as a reward after the fact.
In summary, I won't go so far as to say the faithful and discreet slave is definitely not based on the account of Joseph, only that I think the evidence is not really conclusive one way or the other.
-
minimus
Very interesting read, folks! Leolaia, thanks for the commentary info, too.
-
Leolaia
fahrvegnugen....Your point is certainly a good and valid one, that the key words associated with the slave's promotion are common ones and that this would not have been an uncommon situation. What I have been pointing to, however, is that allusion involves more than the words themselves but how they are used, and I think there you will find a lot of room for variation, as there are many different ways of saying the same thing. Instead of using kathistémi, one could just as easily say that the slave was "entrusted" (pisteuó, e.g. episteuse moi ton oikon autou in Testament of Joseph 2:1, 11:6) with the household. Or that the master "committed the charge" (enkheirizó) of his household to the slave (e.g. enkheirizei te tén tón kata ton oikon autói in Josephus, Antiquities 2.39). Or that the slave "received authority" (paralambanó arkhé, paralambanó exousia, etc.) over the household, or that he "was given authority" (edothé exousia) over the household, or the management of the household is "put in his care" (epimeleias, e.g. epi tois homodoulois arkhén paralambanei kai sumpases tés oikias tén epimeleian in Philo, De Josepho 37). Nor was it necessary to use the preposition epi with words like paralambanó; the genitive would work just fine: paralambane tén t'epimeleian tés emés oikias kai tén Aiguptou "you have charge of the management of my household and all of Egypt" (Philo, De Josepho 117). Or the master could have "made" (epoiésen) the slave a steward/master/overseer/administrator/etc. of his household (cf. epoiése me hós kurion pantos tou oikou autou in Genesis 45:8 LXX). All of these are valid examples because they all were used to describe the promotion of Joseph in the literature of the time. There are probably many other ways of saying this (such as the verbal form epimeleomai "have charge of, have the management of"). Even with kathistémi, there are different ways of phrasing the sentence. Instead of using epi, one could specify the position and use the genitive: katestésen auton kurion tou oikou autou "he appointed him master over his house" (Psalm 105:21 LXX), kathistato tés oikias epitropos "he was appointed superintendent of the household" (Philo, De Josepho 38), etc. Or some other word than oikos could have been used. Similarly, there are many different ways of phrasing the thought that the master appointed the slave as manager of his property. By no means is katastései auton epi pasin tois huparkhousin autou the only way that this could have been said. Rather than saying that the slave is "set over" the property, a word expressing his status as "manager" or "administrator" could have been used, or a different verb indicating his duty such as epimeleomai. Or a different word for property could have been used (such as ktésis, as it is used in Psalm 105:21 LXX). Or instead of pas, one could have used holos or sumpas (as it is in Philo, De Josepho 37) or no equivalent at all. So what I am pointing out is that of all the different options that existed, the phraseology in the parable just so happens to resemble the one in Genesis LXX. Again, it isn't just a matter of common words being used but how they are used, that we have two patterns of (1) kathistémi + epi + oik- and (2) preposition + pas + huparkhousin (dative) + masculine pronoun that in combination are far less common and much more distinctive than the words are by themselves. I haven't had the time to do a thorough search on TLG for these patterns, but I would not be surprised if I find all instances of (1) limited to references to Joseph and the parabolic servant and no independent references to (1) with something like (2) assoicated with it. At least in the LXX they each only occur in the Joseph narrative. I would agree with you that alone these patterns would only be suggestive (but very suggestive). What makes the patterns genuinely distinctive is that they pertain to a slave who is ALSO described as (3) phronimos (as opposed to all the other possible ways to describe a slave), (4) who gives out rations of grain (sitometrion), (5) who does this at a particular appointed time (i.e. the appointed time of the grain-rationing is emphasized in both stories), and (6) who is punished for alleged misbehavior during the master's absence. It is the convergence of all of this that makes me think that the author is using Genesis LXX as an intertext, not any one similarity by itself or the two promotion statements by themselves.
If we accept the above, then this would mean that Joseph's master was Potiphar rather than Pharaoh, which means that his master returned before he even began to distribute the "food in due season." This explanation thus makes no sense at all--Potiphar came and found Joseph doing what? and appointed him over what? If we take Pharaoh to be Joseph's master, who appointed him to 'measure out grain in due season,' then we have a closer parallel but are still left with the fact that Pharaoh never went away somewhere else and then came back to check up on him, nor did he further appoint him over additional 'belongings' as a reward after the fact.
I proleptically addressed this issue in my last post. A case for intertextuality does not assume that the author slavishly abided by the original plot or circumstances, keeping things in the same order and what not. The author of the parable was not telling the story of Joseph; he was describing an ideal servant of Jesus by employing language from the OT that happened to come from the story of Joseph, the most realized and detailed story of a house servant in the OT. Joseph was described in Genesis as an ideal servant in every possible way, so he would have been the most logical choice for a model for the parabolic servant. The listeners of the parable steeped in the OT would have recognized the language and accessing the OT allusion would have added dimensional depth to the parable. But in no sense would an author wanting to draw on the example of Joseph be stuck in following the plot of the original story pedantically; the eschatological scenario that is the point of the parable naturally takes precedence. He is free to mix and match and adapt the material as he pleases. One could similarly point to how the author of Revelation freely used material from Ezekiel and Daniel without necessarily keeping things in the same order and modying the material in many different ways. That doesn't mean that the author wasn't dependent on these earlier works because there are deviations. That is to be expected. Sure...the parallel would be even better had the author of the parable kept to the original order and portrayed the servant as dispensing the food after the return of the master. But that wasn't the point the author wanted to make. And there are already enough parallels in combination to indicate some sort of intertextuality here; a case for intertextuality does not require a one-to-one correspondence between the stories. I think there are many other examples where things are not in the same order, such as the nativity story in Matthew and the intertexts from Exodus concerning Moses.
Again, thanks for the discussion and critique! I kind of miss it (since PP, Midget Sasquatch, euripedes, and even Narkissos don't post here as much any more)
-
fahrvegnugen
Leolaia - OK, first of all, I'll grant you 5 bonus points right off the top for your use of the word "proleptically." But seriously, you do make a persuasive argument here--I might even have to change my opinion BTW, what is your background in all this, are you a closet theologian?