Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE MISSION OF JESUS §12.4
Here we seem to have another of the tradition sequences noted above (§8.6b), in
Q at least (the closeness of the parallel in the second and third examples implies
a literary dependence); but the first example looks like independent oral tradition
known also to Mark; and though only Matthew has the last, Luke knows its
final scene. In other words, the traditioning process is reflected in the grouping
sequences of Matt. 24.42-25.13 and Luke 12.35-46. Those responsible for performing
the tradition on which Q in particular drew, but with similar emphases
in other streams, were evidently concerned to recall that Jesus had spoken such
parables.
There are two features common to the sequence of special note. One is the
certainty of the coming of someone (master, thief, bridegroom) whose coming
will be crucial for the future of the main characters of the parable (slaves, owner,
bridesmaids), but also the uncertainty of the hour of that coming. The other is the
resultant call to watchfulness, to stay awake (gregoreö), 245 the variation indicating
that the call did not hold a fixed place in the tradition, though performers of
the tradition felt free to include it as they deemed appropriate. It should also be
noted once again that the Gospel of Thomas has de-eschatologized the only element
of this tradition which it has retained: 'you must keep watch/be on your
guard against the world' (GTh 21.3; cf. 103).
Dodd justifiably argued that whereas the early churches in retelling these
parables would have thought in terms of the coming (again) of Jesus, Jesus himself
would have had a different perspective. 246 It is an issue, we might say, of
where the hearers of the parable were intended to locate themselves within the
time-frame of the parable. A natural tendency would be to locate oneself relative
to the beginning of the parable — not long after the departure of the master, before
the bridesmaids had fallen asleep, implying good opportunity to act responsibly
in the time remaining. But what if the initial intention had been that hearers
should locate themselves near the end of the parable, at the point when the mas-
245. Mark 13.34; Mark 13.35/Matt. 24.42; Mark 13.37; Matt. 24.43; 25.13; Luke 12.37.
246. Similarly Jeremias, Parables 48-58, 171-75. Dodd's and Jeremias's point is ignored
by those who simply rule out the parables as 'inauthentic' because they reflect Christian
concern over 'the delay of the parousia' (Lüdemann, Jesus 233-34, but he allows that Luke
12.39 'is probably authentic' [349]; others in Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom 385
n. 53). The Jesus Seminar did not give enough weight to the likelihood that the 'thief in the
night' motif elsewhere in earliest Christian writing (1 Thess. 5.2, 4; 2 Pet. 3.10; Rev. 3.3; 16.15)
is an echo of Jesus' imagery (Funk, Five Gospels 252, 342; similarly Crossan, Historical Jesus
250-51; otherwise Crossan limits his discussion to the question of when the apocalyptic Son of
Man entered the tradition [253-54]). The logic of the criterion of dissimilarity is that any parallel
with Jesus tradition tells against the latter being traced back to Jesus; Jesus could have been
neither conventional nor original! See also Beasley-Murray 213-14 and Davies and Allison,
Matthew 3.392-94 [both on Matt. 25.1-13]; Scott, Hear Then the Parable 210-12; Hultgren,
Parables 159-61, 176-77.
430