An excellent comparison of the Greek Oxyrhynchus Fragments
  and Nag Hammadi can be found at the link below. This is a Gnostic
site, actually "The Gnostic site"
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/thomas_poxy.htm

Th.# 9: it yielded sixty per measure  and    one hundred twenty per measure.
Th.# 23: one from a thousand          and    two from ten thousand

   These two "odd" mathematical formulas have much in common,
other than leaving the reader perplexed.
   It has been suggested that # 23 adds up to 120, a significant
number in symbology. Using the same procedure; would the
sum of # 9 equal 180? Is this also an important symbolic number?
   Is it possible, both passages suffer from the same translational
mistake, and neither verse implies a formula?
   If the same mistake is made twice, doesn't it afford a
problematic opportunity?
      Dave Renfro








__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Renfro" <brain32771@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 9:11 PM
Subject: [GTh] Strange math


> Th.# 9: it yielded sixty per measure  and    one hundred twenty per
measure.
> Th.# 23: one from a thousand          and    two from ten thousand
>
FWIW 'one from a thousand and two from ten thousand' has a
number of early close parallels.

Pistis Sophia chapter 134
The Saviour answered and said to Mary 'I tell you they will find
one in a thousand and two in ten thousand.......'

Irenaeus 'Against Heresies' Book 1 chapter 24 (about Basilides)
However the multitude cannot understand these things but one out
of a thousand and two out of ten thousand.

a similar claim about Basilides is found in the Panarion of Epiphanius.

Andrew Criddle

The "pearls before swine" saying is one of the most viciously
self-righteous insults ever attributed to Jesus, IMO. If he said
it (and the Jesus Seminar voted that he probably didn't), the
"pigs and dogs" were probably ethnic groups - certainly Romans
and perhaps also Sumarians - who were thought to be "unclean".
Unfortunately, it soon came to be used against *individuals* -
namely, anyone who didn't agree that one's "pearls of wisdom"
were all that valuable.

But enough of the rant. Gospel of Philip has something to say
about "pearls" that may or may not be seen as antithetical to
the pearls-before-swine saying. As the passage is translated
in NHL, it reads:

"When the pearl is cast down into the mud, it becomes greatly
despised, nor if it is anointed with balsam oil will it become
more precious. But it always has value in the eyes of its
owner. Compare the Sons of God, wherever they may be. They
still have value in the eyes of their father." (NHL, p.147)

My own reading of the Coptic is somewhat different, and I think
makes more sense. Whereas the NHL translation says that a pearl
cast into the mud becomes despised, my reading is that it does
NOT become MORE despised. Under my reading, then, there's a
symmetry missing from the NHL translation: a pearl neither
becomes more despised by being covered with mud, nor more
precious by being anointed with balsam oil. The NHL translator
may have been influenced by the pearls-before-swine saying,
so that he thought what GPh MUST be saying is that pearls in
the mud are despised (by the pigs, presumably). But according
to my reading, the focus on the owner of the "pearl" extends
to the first part of the passage as well. And the "owner" (who
is the good god, apparently) doesn't value it any the less if
it happens to be covered in mud. Does this count against
pearls-before-swine? I'm not sure, but it strikes me as a real
possibility - since even if you cast the good god's "pearls"
before swine, they lose no value.

Mike
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas in Context
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/index.htm

Mike wrote:

> As the passage is translated in NHL, it reads:
>
> "When the pearl is cast down into the mud, it
> becomes greatly despised, nor if it is
> anointed with balsam oil will it become
> more precious. But it always has value in the eyes
> of its owner. Compare the Sons of God,
> wherever they may be. They still have value
> in the eyes of their father." (NHL, p.147)
>
> My own reading of the Coptic is somewhat different,
> and I think makes more sense. Whereas the NHL
> translation says that a pearl
> cast into the mud becomes despised, my reading is
> that it does NOT become MORE despised.

Mike, how exactly do you translate the passage?

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

> Mike, how exactly do you translate the passage? [Loren]

"The pearl, should it be cast down into the mud,
does not become more contemptible.
Nor if it should be annointed in balsam oil
would it become [more?] valuable.
Rather, it has value before its lord at all times."

Thinking it over now, I can see how it might be 'greatly contemptible'
instead of 'more contemptible'. But there is definitely a 'not' there.

Mike

Hey all you Coptologists out there:

A quick question about the Lambdin text -- I've noted here and there a few
typos in the exercises, and am wondering about one in particular, i.e.,
whether it's a typo, or a form I'm not familiar with. The offending party is
the second verb in exercise B.7 of lesson 29: tetnetaau. The grammar of the
sentence suggests this should be a third future, and the form is right for
this, except for the absence of an initial "e". My question: is this: 1) a
typo?; 2) a reduced but correct form of the 3rd future?; or 3) some other
form altogether?

thanks,
Bill
______________________
William Arnal
University of Regina

One wonders how the saying could be further interpreted when one
considers that a "pearl" could be construed as a testament/treatise
from a female member to those of the "unclean" caste of married
Jews, women, and Gentiles?

[K.G. Cook]

> --- "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@c...> wrote:
> The "pearls before swine" saying is one of the most viciously
> self-righteous insults ever attributed to Jesus, IMO. ...

> A quick question about the Lambdin text -- I've noted here and there a few
> typos in the exercises, and am wondering about one in particular, i.e.,
> whether it's a typo, or a form I'm not familiar with. The offending party
> is
> the second verb in exercise B.7 of lesson 29: tetnetaau. The grammar of
> the
> sentence suggests this should be a third future, and the form is right for
> this, except for the absence of an initial "e". My question: is this: 1) a
> typo?; 2) a reduced but correct form of the 3rd future?; or 3) some other
> form altogether?

Hi Bill-

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I wanted to check the notes I had
made while I was working my way through these exercises many years ago. Took
me awhile to find, but happily I have a note indicating that I took it to be
a typo, and that I believed it should be 'etetne-'.

Mike

Hey Mike:

>Sorry for the delay in responding, but I wanted to check the notes I had
>made while I was working my way through these exercises many years ago.
>Took
>me awhile to find, but happily I have a note indicating that I took it to
>be
>a typo, and that I believed it should be 'etetne-'.

Thanks a million. That's what I figured, but I wondered if I was missing
something. Anyone else out there care to differ?

cheers,
Bill
______________________
William Arnal
University of Regina

The following note was posted to another group. I've since added the link
mentioned to my links page -
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_links.htm.
  -MWG
--------------------------------------------------------------------


> [Racheal]:
>> In my internet searches I found a number of really useful sites
>> containing great information.
>>
>> One such link on Coptic is
>> http://www.metalog.org/files/plumley/html/TOC.HTM
>
> This is the table of contents from J. Martin Plumley's Introductory
> (Sahidic) Coptic Grammar, as transcribed in html. The Metalogos site
> (Paterson Brown) has two versions of Plumley's grammar - this one, and
> a set of images of Plumley's original hand-written notes. The links page
> of my site links to the images, but not to the transcription (which hadn't
> been completed when I created the link, as I recall). I should probably
> change that now. A couple of things to note is that Plumley's work was
> pre-Nag Hammadi (in 1948, the codices weren't yet widely available to
> scholars), and that the transcribed version of his notes requires the
> installation of five fonts (if the link above shows English letters
> instead of Coptic, you don't have those fonts installed). The TOC is the
> third page of the transcription, following a cover page and an
> introductory note from which the five fonts can be downloaded. I think
> I'll link to the cover page from my site, rather than directly to the TOC.
> The interested reader can then go to the second page, install the fonts,
> move down to the TOC and bookmark that on his own, if desired.
>
> Mike

Mike was kind enough to share with us the link to Plumley's Coptic
Grammar and so, in the same spirit, here is another link to an unusual
site that has the Unabridged edition of TDNT (Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament).

http://www.biblecentre.net/

TDNT is clearly only in the peripheral interests of the GThomas list,
but I think some folks might find it quite helpful, Thinking back on
numerous discussions about the Greek words sarx, soma, et al, such a
tool might help elevate future discussions to a slightly more informed
level.

NOTE: There is some dispute about whether certain copyrighted material
is being used on this site with appropriate permissions. I've heard both
that the site is in violation of copyright laws AND that it is not in
violation. I suggest you carefully consider this controversy before
using ANY material on the site.

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello
This is the first time I am posting a message to this site, some may
know me from some other groups and some may not, for those of you
who dont I look forward to sharing with you.

It has been suggested before that saying 14 could be seen as an
answer to saying 6, in the same light I would like to pose that
saying 30 appears to be an answer to the question in saying 24,

(24)
(1) His disciples said: "Show us the place where you are,
because it is necessary for us to seek it.

(30) Jesus says:
(1) "Where there are three gods, they are gods.
(2) Where there are two or one, I am with him."

as 24 asks about the place where Jesus is and in saying 30 Jesus is
refering to the place where he can be found. It still appears to be
quite a cryptic way to answer, but I can see a definite connection
here especially when reading Mikes translation from the coptic, both
verses are concerned with the "place" Jesus is at.

Regards
Racheal

[Racheal]:
> It has been suggested before that saying 14 could be seen as an
> answer to saying 6, in the same light I would like to pose that
> saying 30 appears to be an answer to the question in saying 24,
> ...
> as 24 asks about the place where Jesus is and in saying 30 Jesus is
> refering to the place where he can be found. It still appears to be
> quite a cryptic way to answer, but I can see a definite connection
> here especially when reading Mikes translation from the coptic, both
> verses are concerned with the "place" Jesus is at.

The original words are different, though. L24.1 uses the Greek word TOPOS,
while 30 uses the Coptic word MA (twice). Also, L30 isn't the only candidate
for a more direct answer to 24.1. Interestingly, one of the other
candidates - 77.3 ("Split a timber, I am there; pick up the stone and you
will discover me there") - is attached to the end of L30 in the Greek
version.

Another candidate is L86 (particularly, "the Son of Man has no place to lay
his head and rest"). However, here, as in 77.3, the word used is MA, not
TOPOS. TOPOS occurs 4 times in the text other than 24.1 (4, 60, 64, and 68),
but none of them seem to be good candidates for an answer to 24.1.

The peculiar thing about L14 is that it begins with the words 'IS said to
them...', but there's no "them" in immediate view. This lends grammatical
credence to a joining up of 6A with 14, because in 6A the disciples do in
fact ask the four questions directly answered in 14. In contrast, 24.1 and
24.2 are properly gramatically connected, so if we separate the two of them
and regard 24.1 as answered elsewhere, then we have to find a matching
question for 24.2 elsewhere as well. This is a problem not present in the
6A-14 pairing.

Mike

--- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@c...>
wrote:

>
> The original words are different, though. L24.1 uses the Greek
word TOPOS,
> while 30 uses the Coptic word MA (twice). Also, L30 isn't the only
candidate
> for a more direct answer to 24.1. Interestingly, one of the other
> candidates - 77.3 ("Split a timber, I am there; pick up the stone
and you
> will discover me there") - is attached to the end of L30 in the
Greek
> version.
>
> Another candidate is L86 (particularly, "the Son of Man has no
place to lay
> his head and rest"). However, here, as in 77.3, the word used is
MA, not
> TOPOS. TOPOS occurs 4 times in the text other than 24.1 (4, 60,
64, and 68),
> but none of them seem to be good candidates for an answer to 24.1.
>
> The peculiar thing about L14 is that it begins with the words 'IS
said to
> them...', but there's no "them" in immediate view. This lends
grammatical
> credence to a joining up of 6A with 14, because in 6A the
disciples do in
> fact ask the four questions directly answered in 14. In contrast,
24.1 and
> 24.2 are properly gramatically connected, so if we separate the
two of them
> and regard 24.1 as answered elsewhere, then we have to find a
matching
> question for 24.2 elsewhere as well. This is a problem not present
in the
> 6A-14 pairing.
>
Mike

I agree with you about the other possible answers. Notice the theme
question of who jesus is and where he is, is repeated a few times
with more specific answers such as the one where Salome asks Jesus
who he is, or when the disciples ask when it will be possible for
them to look on him.

The connection of 24.2 to 24.1 the question of the place where Jesus
is at is not there, 24.2 appears to be a generalised term refering
to a man of light and furthermore the statement "He who has ears"
sounds like a statement drawing attention to a more or further
defining factor of a preceding statement such as the one commencing
at Line 521 said JS75.

STM "He who has ears" is a significant statement drawing special
attention to certain concepts, such as if instead of being at the
end of the fishermans parable in saying 8 it was the introduction to
saying 9, the concept of the importance of paying attention could be
found in 9.3 of putting roots to earth and ears to heaven.

I am working on a backward theory at the moment trying to define
some definite connections that may lend to further clues as to what
the original writer/s may have had in mind. I am just in the early
stages, but it never occurred to me to check the coptic/greek
representation of the word (too distracted of late) so thankyou for
your input.

Racheal

Hi everyone,

I have managed to get myself involved in helping with a Society of Biblical
Literature project to develop a keyboard layout for Unicode Coptic fonts and
am after some feedback.  For those who (like me before I got involved) are
not sure about the significance of this: each character in a Unicode font is
assigned a unique code, and this makes it possible for scholars and
publishers to exchange texts between Unicode environments without converting
texts or losing data.

What I am helping with is working out which characters to assign to which
keys on a keyboard to make them user-friendly.

Since I started learning Coptic, I have been using the (non-Unicode) fonts
made available on the Coptic Orthodox Church website
(http://www.copticchurch.net/coptic_fonts/), which they are proposing as an
international standard for Coptic.As a touch typist, I find their keyboard
layout find very user-friendly.  It was also very quick to learn, having
been designed to be used by people who type a lot of Coptic, so I have been
suggesting that this would be the best layout to use. The technical person
who has designed the provisional layout however says the layout he is
proposing is "based on the Greek Polytonic layout...[because] I suspect that
scholars of Coptic are likely to be familiar with that, and would prefer
something closely corresponding to it for Coptic too."  He asks "Would those
scholars who are already familiar with the international-standard Greek
Polytonic mapping outnumber those who are familiar with the Church one?"

I have no idea, and I also wonder how important this is for typists who
don't touch type.  So, can I have some feedback, please?

Are people on this list familiar with the Greek Polytonic keyboard layout?
And if you are, how important would it be for a unicode Coptic keyboard to
have the characters common to the Greek and Coptic alphabets on the same
keys in both?

And, incidentally, does anyone here use uppercase and lowercase in Coptic?
The unicode font with which we are working (New Athena) has both, but I
wasn't aware that uppercase was ever used.  The characters look the same,
except for one that only occurs in Bohairic - they're just bigger.

And anyone who would like to be involved more directly would be welcome.  I
made the mistake of complaining on the SBL fonts list that the keyboard
mapping for the existing Coptic font on the SBL site was very
non-typist-friendly and got invited to help out and suddenly I am the
resident Coptic expert after four semesters of working with the language and
very little familiarity with any text other than Gospel of Thomas!!!!!!

Regards

Judy

--
" Let us forever remember that the sense for the sacred is as vital to us as
the light of the sun." - Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1944

Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
email:  jredman@...

Dear Judy,

Thank you for posting information about Coptic fonts. This must be an issue
everyone who has worked in Coptic struggles with.

My suspicion is that scholars interested in an SBL keyboard layout for Coptic
will overwhelmingly be familiar with the Greek polytonic layout because they've
done so much work in Greek.

For myself, I must throw my support behind your technical person. Having used
various similar keyboard layouts for typing polytonic Greek over the years, I
would be absolutely mortified to have to learn an entirely new keyboard for
Coptic. I've learned which keys I use to type which Greek characters and would
find it severely annoying to be have to type the _very same letters_ with
different keys in different fonts. If I type a sigma with the "s" key in a Greek
font, why should I have to use the "c" key to type it with my Coptic font. This
doesn't seem very intuitive to me. I'd likely find it so annoying that I'd want
to discard the system altogether.

For what it's worth, those are my thoughts on the matter.

Thanks for letting me know about the New Athena font. Unicode Coptic fonts are
quite rare these days and I'm appreciative to have learned about this one.

Best,
Andrew


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Are people on this list familiar with the Greek Polytonic keyboard layout?

Hi Judy,

Personally, I wasn't, so I did some googling. Happened onto ...

http://www.biblicalgreek.org/links/fonts/keyboard.html

... which raises a question, since it shows two different keyboard mappings
for Greek Polytonic - one by Microsoft, one (called 'Keyman') by a private
individual. Thing is, the Keyman mapping may be closer to conventional Greek
transliteration schemes; in fact, the above site has some complimentary
things to say about that mapping. Theta, for example, is mapped to 'Q' in
Keyman, but to 'U' in the MS mapping. So when you speak of "the" keyboard
mapping for Greek Polytonic, should one assume that you're speaking of the
MS mapping and that no others are under consideration?

> And, incidentally, does anyone here use uppercase and lowercase in Coptic?
> The unicode font with which we are working (New Athena) has both, but I
> wasn't aware that uppercase was ever used.  The characters look the same,
> except for one that only occurs in Bohairic - they're just bigger.

In the Coptic font that I use, uppercase is the same letter as lowercase,
except with an overstroke. This is a nice user-friendly feature for Coptic,
but I don't see how that feature can survive when the Greek lowercase
letters are mapped onto the same keyboard. Alas, I guess I'll have to get
used to a separate overstroke character. As to New Athena and unicode, I've
installed the font, now have to figure out how to switch the keyboard to
type unicode, so I can see what the New Athena Greek letters look like. Too
bad we're gonna lose some resemblence to the original uncial manuscripts
(both NH and NT), such as the 'C' for sigma.

> And anyone who would like to be involved more directly would be welcome.

I wouldn't mind helping out on this.

Mike

[Andrew B]:
> If I type a sigma with the "s" key in a Greek font, why should I have to
> use the "c" key to type it with my Coptic font. This doesn't seem very
> intuitive to me. I'd likely find it so annoying that I'd want to discard
> the system altogether.

Hi Andrew,

In case I didn't make it clear in my note, which I wrote before receiving
yours, I fully agree that sigma should be the 'S' key on any mapping. What I
was remarking on was that in many uncial NT mss (as well as the NH books),
the sigma closely resembles 'C', and I think it's a shame to lose that
entirely. As it turns out, though, there's a ready solution. Since the
lower-case sigma has two forms (one for final sigma), there would naturally
have to be two keys for it. Why not use the uppercase of the second key for
the alternate uppercase form of sigma?

Mike

Mike writes:

> As to New Athena and
> unicode, I've
> installed the font, now have to figure out how to switch the
> keyboard to
> type unicode, so I can see what the New Athena Greek letters
> look like. Too
> bad we're gonna lose some resemblence to the original uncial
> manuscripts
> (both NH and NT), such as the 'C' for sigma.

What we're working on is a a keyboard layout you can install on your
computer to map the Coptic fonts to actual keys, rather than trying to
remember the Unicode codes for them.

So, when you want to type Coptic, you simply switch keyboards by clicking an
icon in your task bar and you hit a letter and it comes out as a Coptic
character.  When you want to type Greek, you switch keyboards again and the
same letter will come out in Greek, so in theory it would be possible to map
the Coptic keyboard so that the shifted characters have the stroke above
them and the unshifted don't and the Greek keyboard so that there are the
appropriate upper and lower case keys.

Judy

Mike and Judy,

My further thoughts.



> Why not use the uppercase of the second key for the alternate
uppercase form of sigma?

An interesting suggestion, but I don't think unicode is prepared for
this scenario. Does unicode have an assigned character value for
both a lunate and linear upper case form of sigma? I think it just
has one value established for lower case sigma, one for upper case
sigma, and one for final sigma.

> ... which raises a question, since it shows two different keyboard
mappings for Greek Polytonic - one by Microsoft, on
(called 'Keyman') by a private individual.

There are more than just two keyboard mappings for Greek Polytonic,
but any keyboard map that assigns theta to "u" is retarded. I'll be
more clear on the mapping I would personally prefer. It is primarily
phonetic, but assigns eta, theta, psi, and omega to key for
different reasons.

1.alpha: a
2.beta: b
3.gamma: g
4.delta: d
5.epsilon: e
6.zeta: z
7.eta: h (uncial looks like capital H)
8.theta: q (it's as good as anything)
9.iota: i
10.kappa: k
11.lambda: l
12.mu: m
13.nu: n
14.csi: x
15.omnicron: o
16.pi: p
17.rho: r
18.sigma: s
19.tau: t
20.upsilon: u
21.phi: f
22.chi: c (hard sound)
23.psi (it's as good as anything)
24.omega: w (uncial looks like lower case w)

I really would be unhappy if any of the 20 purely phonetically
assigned characters were altered in a keyboard map. Eta and omega,
while not phonetically assigned, are pretty intuitive given their
resemblences to English characters. Q for theta I think has become
pretty standard. Y for psi is what I'm used to, at least.

Of the alphabetic keys, that leaves just j and v unassigned. I think
final sigma is usually assigned to j and v is left unassigned.

My personal preference for Sahidic Coptic is to assign shai to 1,
fai to 2, hori to 3, janjia to 4, chima to 5, ti to 6. There really
aren't enough English letter keys to accomodate them on the keyboard
and numbering them in this order I could always remember what the
keys corresponded to. I am curious how these have been assigned in
the SBL's draft keyboard map.

Andrew

> Mike
>

> What we're working on is a a keyboard layout you can install on your
> computer to map the Coptic fonts to actual keys, rather than trying
to
> remember the Unicode codes for them.

That will be extremely useful.

I have a question about the unicode coptic. If I were to do a
transcription of one of the Nag Hammadi texts, am I supposed to use
the upper or lower case Coptic characters? They both look the same,
but have different sizes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2005 6:33 AM
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [GTh] Coptic keyboard layout
>
>
>
> > What we're working on is a a keyboard layout you can
> install on your
> > computer to map the Coptic fonts to actual keys, rather than trying
> to
> > remember the Unicode codes for them.
>
> That will be extremely useful.
>
> I have a question about the unicode coptic. If I were to do a
> transcription of one of the Nag Hammadi texts, am I supposed to use
> the upper or lower case Coptic characters? They both look the same,
> but have different sizes.

This is one of the issues we are trying to straighten out.  I think the
lower case ones, actually, because I don't think there is a unicode
character that can be mapped to put a line over the uppercase ones.

Mike's comment makes me realise that it probably won't be possible to have
the shifted keys as characters with strokes over them - there are no unicode
characters for them, so we will need to type the stroke separately.  However
Alec, who is doing the technical stuff, indicated that it is actually
possible to get the Unicode standard changed to add characters that you need
- just a bit time consuming. :-)

Judy

I agree with you, Judy, that small case is probably the way to go.

Also, I have discovered that someone (Logos) has beaten you to the
punch on creating the Coptic keyboard:

http://www.logos.com/support/lbs/fonts/CopticKeyboard

It's easy to install and works fantastic (and it's mapped as I like it).

Mike, you can type unicode characters manually in Word by typing the
unicode value and then pressing alt+x. Or you can install the above
keyboard and you'll be able to see that font.

Andrew,

I am aware of the Logos keyboard, but there are things about it that I don't
like.  The most problematic from my perspective is that there are letters of
the alphabet that can only be typed by holding down the right Alt key or
doing a Ctrl+Alt.  These keys are tee, fai, horee, cheema and (less
importantly for me because it only seems to appear in Bohairic) khai.  For
some odd reason, it also has shai, tee and cheema mapped to different keys
in different states.  Given how often fai and horee in particular are used
in Coptic, not being able to type them with a single keystroke is a right
pain in the neck.

It would be nice if we could actually negotiate a standard and stick with
it. :-)

Judy

--
" Let us forever remember that the sense for the sacred is as vital to us as
the light of the sun." - Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1944

Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
email:  jredman@...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2005 11:57 AM
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [GTh] Coptic keyboard layout
>
>
> I agree with you, Judy, that small case is probably the way to go.
>
> Also, I have discovered that someone (Logos) has beaten you to the
> punch on creating the Coptic keyboard:
>
> http://www.logos.com/support/lbs/fonts/CopticKeyboard
>
> It's easy to install and works fantastic (and it's mapped as
> I like it).
>
> Mike, you can type unicode characters manually in Word by typing the
> unicode value and then pressing alt+x. Or you can install the above
> keyboard and you'll be able to see that font.
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> To unsubscribe from this group,
> send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

(Note: This is the first post in a series of five posts)

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPEL PROBLEM AND THOMAS: A CASE STUDY

I INTRODUCTION

The three Synoptic gospels are Matthew (Mt), Mark (Mk), and Luke (Lk).

There is a large body of material that is common to all three.

The most widely accepted solution for this situation is the hypothesis of
Markan priority--according to which Mk was the first of the three Synoptic
gospels to be written and both Matthew and Luke used Mk as a source for
their own gospels.

There also is smaller, but still large, body of non-Markan material common
to both Mt and Lk.  The most widely accepted solution to this situation is
the Two Document Hypothesis (2DH).  This consists of three hypotheses:
1. the hypothesis of Markan priority
2. the hypothesis that Mt and Lk were written independently of each other
3. the Q hypothesis--according to which Matthew and Luke used a postulated
source that is normally referred to as the Q gospel or, more simply, Q.
In this case, the body of non-Markan material common to Mt and Lk comes from
Q.

The International Q Project (IQP) has issued a postulated reconstruction of
Q. Many scholars think that there are strata within Q and, so, divide it
into "layers" of material.  In "A Q Community in Galilee?" (NTS, 50, 2004.
pp 476-494)), Birger A. Pearson notes (p. 480, n. 18), "Some 30 volumes are
projected of Documenta Q, consisting of commentaries on the individual
pericopes of Q and the history of research on them."


Q, particularly its allegedly earliest stratum, has become a Mecca for those
seeking an "authentic" Christianity as opposed to the allegedly deviant
Pauline Christianity and Jacobian Christianity.  It's place is not the
Diaspora of Paul's mission, nor the Jerusalem of James' central authority,
but the Galilee in which Jesus preached.

It also has become a Mecca for those seeking the "authentic" Jesus.  Such a
Jesus is radically different from Paul's crucified Christ and Savior.  For
some, he is a sage, for some a social reformer, for some a wandering Cynic
Jew, for some a peasant genius, etc..

So, even though it is a gospel that does not exist now and for which there
is no concrete evidence that it ever existed, Q exerts a great influence on
modern scholarly thought regarding Jesus and earliest Christianity.

Some scholars have proposed another explanation which is slowly garnering
more support.  This is the Farrer (or: Mark Without Q) Hypothesis (FH).
This consists of  three hypotheses:
1. the hypothesis of Markan priority
2. the hypothesis that Luke used Mt as a source
3. the hypothesis that Q never existed.
In this case, the body of non-Markan material common to Mt and Lk consists
of Matthean material utilized by Luke in writing his gospel.

There are other proposals for solving the problem of explaining the
relationships between the Synoptic gospels, but these are the main two at
the current time.

Even though Thomas (Th) has many passages with parallels in the Synoptic
gospels, neither the 2DH nor the FH takes it into account.  As a result,
both have the hidden premise that none of the Synoptic gospel writers
used Th as a source.

Certainly, this might be the case.  For example, perhaps Th was written
later than any of the Synoptic gospels.

But, then again, this might not be the case.

As I have pointed out in past posts, there is some evidence supportive of
what can be called the Mark and Thomas Without Q Hypothesis (MTH).  It
consists of five hypotheses:
1. the hypothesis of Markan priority
2. the hypothesis that Luke used Mt as a source
3. the hypothesis that Q never existed.
4.the hypothesis that Th and Mk were written independently of each other
5. the hypothesis that both Matthew and Luke used Th as a source.

The first three hypotheses constitute the FH.  So, whenever dealing with
Synoptic material without any parallels in Th, the discussion can be limited
to the 2DH and the FH.  It is only whenever dealing with Synoptic material
with parallels in Th that the discussion needs to be expanded to include the
MTH.

In order to make a case for the MTH, then, two conditions need to be met:
1. when analyzing Synoptic material without taking into account any
parallels in Th, it needs to be demonstrated that the FH is superior to the
2DH
2. when analyzing Synoptic material in a manner that takes into account any
parallels in Th, it needs to be demonstrated that the MTH is superior to
both the 2DH and the FH.

This is the first is a series of  five posts in which an attempt will be
made to make a case for the MTH by analyzing Mt 11:7-11//Lk 7:24-28//Mk
1:2//Th 46, 78.

The analysis of will proceed by looking at each of these three units in
their sequential order.  It will be concluded that:
1. where the discussion of the Synoptic material does not take into account
any Th parallels, the evidence of these passages suggests that the FH is
superior to the 2DH
2. where the discussion of the Synoptic material does take into account any
Th parallels, the evidence of these passages suggests that the MTH is
superior to both the 2DH and the FH.
So, it will be further concluded, these passages constitute a foundation
upon which it might be possible to make a credible case for the MTH.

I know that there are good reasons for many of you not to read the other
four posts.  For example, as I am a layperson, I am not adequately trained
to do the analysis with the full rigor that a scholar would utilize.  So,
because the analysis, while in-depth, is somewhat amateurish, scholars have
good reason to conclude that it would be a waste of their time to read the
other four posts.  Again, because it gets rather technical, some of the
non-scholars will likely find it rather intimidating and, so, think it
better to skip reading the other four posts.  Too, many of you have likely
concluded that I am somewhat eccentric, to put it kindly (I plead guilty!),
so the MTH is probably nothing more than the product of an over-imaginative
mind, so why bother reading the other four posts?

Still, .I beg you to read the other four posts.  While the discussion is
dry and abstract, there are momentous issues at stake.  If there was no Q,
then a majority of NT scholars are basing much of their studies and
conclusions on a chimera.  If Th and Mk were the earliest gospels, as is
maintained in the MTH, the roots of the later division of Christianity into
what can be (somewhat misleadingly) labelled Orthodox and Gnostic wings go
back to these two foundation gospels and the question arises as to which one
of them is closer to the real Jesus of history.

I would appreciate your comments.  Also, I hope that this sparks some
discussions about the possibility of Th being one of the two earliest
gospels--maybe even the earliest one of all!

Frank McCoy
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

(NOTE: This is the second in a series of five posts)

II THE TEXTS

A The Texts for the Passages

Here are the texts for the passages we will be examining, i.e., Mt
11:7-11//Lk 7:24-28//Mk 1:2//Th 46, 78:

Unit I  Mt 11:7-9//Lk 7:24-26//Th 78
Line 1
Mt 11:7a And, as these ones were leaving, Jesus began to say to the crowds
concerning John
Th 78:1a Jesus said this,
Lk 7:24a, And, as were departing the messengers of John, he began to say to
the crowds about John
Line 2
Mt 11:7b What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by
the wind?
Th 78:1b Because of what did you come out to the field?  To see a reed
moving about by the wind?
Lk 7:24b "What did you go out into the wilderness to see?  A reed being
shaken by the wind?
Line 3
  Mt 11:8 But what did you go out to see?  A man dressed in soft clothes?
Behold! the ones wearing soft clothes are in the houses of Kings.'
Th 78:2, And to see a man clothed in fine garments like your Kings and your
great men?
Lk 7:25, And what did you go out to see?  A man being dressed in soft
clothing?  Behold! The ones with glorious apparel and living in luxury are
in the palaces.
Line 4
Mt 11:9 But what did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, I tell you--and
one greater than a prophet.
Th 78:3 These are in garments which are soft on them and they cannot know
the truth.
Lk 7:26  But who did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, I say to you--and
more than a prophet

Unit II Mt 11:10//Lk 7:27//Mk 1:2
Line 5
Mt 11:10a  This is about whom it has been written,
Mk 1:2a Just as it has been written in Isaiah the prophet,
Lk 7:27a This one is he about whom it has been written
Line 6
Mt 11:10b Behold I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your
way in front of you.
Mk 1:2b,  Behold! I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare
your way.
Lk 7:27b Behold!  I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare
your way in front of you.

Unit III Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28//Th 46
Line 7
Mt 11:11a Truly, I say to you, there has not arisen among [those] born of
women greater that John the Baptist,
Th 46:1 Said Jesus this, From Adam up to John the Baptist, among the
begotten of woman, no one is raised up above John the Baptist so that to
break his eyes.
Lk 7:28a I say to you, among those born of women, no one is greater than
John
Line 8
Mt 11:11b but the least in the Kingdom of the Heavens is greater than him.
Th 46:2 However, I spoke this: He among you who will come to being a little
one, he will know the Kingdom and will be raised above John.
Lk 7:28b But the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than him.

B Why the Passages are Divided into Three Separate Units

Note that, in this line schema, the passages are divided into three separate
units.

There are two basic reasons for doing this.  First, they naturally divide
this way.  This is readily apparent in the observation that the outer two
units each have a parallel in Th, while the middle unit has a parallel in
Mk.

Second, it is likely that they originally were three separate sayings.

For example, in The Historical Jesus (p. 236), John Dominic Crossan argues
that the first two units were originally separate, stating, "I consider that
two originally independent units have become merged in the Sayings Gospel Q
complex and that those two are still visible in that original separation at
Gospel of Thomas 78 and Mak 1:2-3, respectively:
  (a) Questions and Answer About John
   (1) Gos. Thom. 78
   (2) 2Q: Luke 7:24-26 = Matt. 11:7-9
  (b) Application of Mal. 3:1 to John:
   (1) 2Q: Luke 7:27 = Matt 11:10
   (2) Mark 1:2-3"
(Notes: (1) "2Q" means that they belong to the second stratum of Q.  Crossan
divides Q into three strata, so these two units are assigned by him to the
middle stratum.  (2) While Crossan has the Markan passage for unit two as
being Mk 1:2-3, the line analysis above reveals that it should be shortened
to Mk 1:2. (3) While Crossan states that unit two cites Mal 3:1, as will be
pointed out later, the citatation, rather, appears to be of Ex. 23:20).

Again, in Q and the History of Early Christianity (pp. 134), Christopher M.
Tuckett notes a likely seam between the second and third unit, stating,
"There does however seem to be a seam between v. 27 and v. 28.  The repeated
legw humin of Q 7:28 (cf. v. 26) makes it unlikely that v. 28 belonged with
vv. 24-27 originally." (Note:  Q 7:28 = Lk 7:28.  When assigning
chapter(s)and verse(s) to a passage from the postulated Q, the convention is
to use the chapter(s) and verse(s) for the Lukan version of the passage.
So, when Tuckett speaks of a seam between Q 7:27 and Q 7:28, he is, in
effect, speaking of a seam between Lk 7:27//Mt 11:9 and Lk 7:28//Mt 11:10)

C. Who, Then, Combined The Three Passages?

Under the 2DH, it was the author(s) of Q who combined the three separate
sayings into a unified narrative.  Under the FH and the MTH, it was Matthew
who combined the three separate sayings into a unified narrative.

Frank McCoy
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

(Note: This is the third in a sequence of five posts)

III ANALYSIS OF UNIT 1 MT 11:7-9//LK 7:24-26//TH 78

A. Mt 11:7-9//:l 7:24-26
Let us now turn to an analysis of the first unit of Mt 11:7-11//Lk
7:24-28//Mk 1:2//Th 46, 78.

We will begin with an analysis of Mt 11:7-9//Lk 7:24-26--which reads:
Line 1
Mt 11:7a And, as these ones were leaving, Jesus began to say to the crowds
concerning John
Lk 7:24a, And, as were departing the messengers of John, he began to say to
the crowds about John
Line 2
Mt 11:7b What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by
the wind?
Lk 7:24b "What did you go out into the wilderness to see?  A reed being
shaken by the wind?
Line 3
  Mt 11:8 But what did you go out to see?  A man dressed in soft clothes?
Behold! the ones wearing soft clothes are in the houses of Kings.'
Lk 7:25, And what did you go out to see?  A man being dressed in soft
clothing?  Behold! The ones with glorious apparel and living in luxury are
in the palaces.
Line 4
Mt 11:9 But what did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, I tell you--and
one greater than a prophet.
Lk 7:26  But who did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, I say to you--and
more than a prophet

As can be seen, the  Mt and Lk versions of this unit are so closely related
that a literary relationship between them is necessitated.

B. From the Perspectives of the 2DH and the FH

According to the 2DH, the nature of the literary relationship between Mt
11:7-9 and Lk 7:24-26 is that both passages are based on Q 7:24-26

According to the FH, the nature of the literary relationship between Mt
11:7-9 and Lk 7:24-26 is that first Matthew wrote Mt 11:7-9 and then Luke
based Lk 7:24-26 on Mt 11:7-9.

Now, in determining which explanation is more likely to be correct, I think
a key point is that, it is assumed, when the reader sees these questions in
Mt 11:8:
    Who did you go out to see?  A man dressed in soft clothing?
the reader will immediately recognize that these are strictly rhetorical
questions to be answered negatively.

Indeed, this is the case for a reader of Mt.  Such a person already knows
that John wore rough clothing because such a person has already read Mt 3:4,
"Now John, himself, had his clothing from [the] hairs of a camel and a
leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey."

Beyond that, such a reader will probably have seen, in the description of
John in Mt 1:4, an allusion to II (IV) Kings 1:8, "And they said to him
(i.e., Ochozias, the King of Israel), 'He was a hairy man, and fit with a
leather girdle about his loins.'  And he said, 'This is Elijah, the
Thesbite.'"  This King, further, is at his royal residence in Samaria (1:2)
and presumably is wearing much softer clothing than that worn by Elijah.

So, the reader of Mt will not only recognize that these are rhetorical
questions but that, beyond that, will likely recognize that the immediately
following reference, in Mt 11:8, to those in soft clothing who reside in
royal residences alludes to the same incident in II (IV) Kings that is
alluded to in Mt 3:4.

The clear implication of these allusions in Mt 3:4 and Mt 11:8 to II(IV)
Kings 1:8 and its context is that John is Elijah come again.

So, when the reader turns to these two questions in the next verse:
But what did you go out to see?  A prophet?
the reader, most likely, will immediately recognize that these, too, are
rhetorical questions--for, the reader will probaly have already inferred,
John is, indeed, a prophet, i.e., the prophet Elijah come again.

In line with this,  soon thereafer, in Mt 11:15, Matthew has Jesus declare
that John is Elijah--presumably for the benefit of those who failed to catch
the allusions to II(IV) Kings 1:8 in Mt 3:4 and in Mt 11:8.  .

However, for the reader of Luke, the situation is quite different.  In Luke
3:1-20, Luke does not have a parallel to Mt 1:4//Mk 1:6 and its allusion to
II(IV) Kings 1:8.  As a result, these questions in Lk 7:25:
And what did you go out to see?  A man being dressed in soft clothing?
will catch the reader off guard and (s)he will have to read on to find the
answer.

The FH has no problem explaining the situation.  Mt 11:7-9 is a Matthean
creation.  In it, he alludes back to Mt 1:4 and, beyond it, to II(IV) Kings
1:8.  Then, Luke based Lk 7:24-26 on Mt 11:7-9.  However, because he opted
not to write a parallel to Mt 3:4//Mk 1:6 in Lk 3:1-20, Lk 7:24-26 is
rootless, so that the reader is in no position to immediately answer the
rhetorical questions in Lk 7:25 and Lk 7:26, but must read on to find out
what the answers are

The 2DH has no readily apparent explanation for this situation.

However, an advocate of the 2DH is likely to argue that the situation has
been mis-conceptualized and that it is reading too much into Mt 11:7-9//Lk
7:24-26 to see an allusion to Mt 3:4//Mk 1:6 in it and, beyond that, an
allusion to II(IV) Kings 1:8.  As a result, we are not to see, here, an
allusion to the contrast between the prophet Elijah in his rough clothes and
the King of Israel in his Samaritan royal residence and dressed in soft
clothes.  Rather, we are to see an allusion to the contrast between the
prophet John and Herod Antipas at his royal residence and dressed in soft
clothes..

So Crossan (Ibid., pp. 236-37) states, "In terms of content, the saying sets
up a contrast between desert and palace and between their appopriate and
expected inhabitants.  But, while a prophet is clearly named as the one you
expect to find in the desert, the palace dweller is not defined as king or
courtier, ruler or minister.  He is simply described, metaphorically, as one
who bends to the prevailing wind and, literally, is deressed in soft,
gorgeous, and luxurious garments.  But, even if that is a correct reading,
why is the saying set up that way?  Why compare and contrast the
desert-dwelling prophet with, precisely, the palace-dwelling 'man'?  The
only answer I can imagine is that the saying intends a comparison between
John and Antipas and that it arose, directly and immediately, from the
crisis engendered among his followers by John's incarceration and execution.
It reads like an attempt to maintain faith in John's apocalyptic vision
despite John's own execution.  He is--he still is--not just another prophet
but the last of the prophets, the Prophet of the Coming One.  I accept the
aphorism, so understood and so engendered, as stemming from Jesus."

So, in this case, we have an aphorism that goes back to the historical
Jesus.  Then, after a period of oral transmission, it was written down by
the author of Q.  Finally, Matthew and Luke independently utilized Q 7:24-26
in writing, respectively, Mt  11:7-9 and Lk 7:24-26.

Does it, then, just boil down to a judgment call in interpretation for
deciding whether the 2DH or the FH has the better explanation here?

I do not think so.

In the Case Against Q (p. 183), Mark Goodacre states, "Jesus' question in Q
7:24, 'What then did you go out to the wilderness to see?' presupposes
another element that is not narrated in Q: the wilderness location for
John's activity.  Once again, this is something directly recounted in all
three synoptics but not, as far as we can tell, in Q.  Perhaps this saying
too was constructed by someone like Matthew who was familiar with that
Markan narrative."

He makes a good point here.  That John was in the wilderness is explicitly
stated in Mk 1:4, Mt 3:1, and Lk 3:2.  Such triple tradition material, under
the theory of Markan priority, is based on Mk.  Further, in their postulated
reconstruction of Q, the IQP does not include any statement about John being
in the wilderness.  So, this is evidence that whoever wrote the first
version of Mt 11:7-10//Lk 7:24-26 based it on  Markan-originated material
rather than on Q material.

He (Ibid.) then goes on to state, "In Q 7:18-19, John sends disciples to ask
a question of Jesus, and subsequently Jesus places his activity very much in
the past, 'What *did* you go out to see?' (7:24 and 7:26).  It appears to be
the case that John has been arrested; it is presupposed that his active
ministry is over and he is unable to go ask these questions of Jesus itself.
What Q appears to presuppose is once more made clear in the triple tradition
material: that John was arrested at a point after his preaching but prior to
this incident (Mark 1:14//Matt 4:12//Luke 3:20).  Perhaps, again, this
material was composed by an evangelist like Matthew in the light of the
earlier development of his own narrative."

So, as respects Mt 11:7-9//Lk 7:24-26, it appears that the weight of the
evidence favors the FH rather than the 2DH

Thus, the most likely scenario appears to be this: First Matthew wrote Mt
11:7-9.  In it, he alludes back to Mt 4:12, to Mt 3:1, and to Mt 3:4--and,
beyond it, to II(IV) Kings 1:8.   So, much of the imagery in this passage is
based on the contrast between Elijah the prophet in his rough clothes and
the King of Israel sitting in his royal residence and wearing soft clothes,
As a result, in this passage, Matthew implicitly identifies John as being
Elijah come again.  Then Luke based Lk 7:24-28 on it.

C. Mt 11:7-11//Lk 7:24-26//Th 78

1. The Th Factor

What, though, is the relationship between Mt ll:7-9//Lk 7:24-26 and Th 78?
Let us now turn to this question.

2. The Three Passages

Let us begin by re-looking at Unit I:
Line 1
Mt 11:7a And, as these ones were leaving, Jesus began to say to the crowds
concerning John
Th 78:1a Jesus said this,
Lk 7:24a, And, as were departing the messengers of John, he began to say to
the crowds about John
Line 2
Mt 11:7b What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by
the wind?
Th 78:1b Because of what did you come out to the field?  To see a reed
moving about by the wind?
Lk 7:24b "What did you go out into the wilderness to see?  A reed being
shaken by the wind?
Line 3
  Mt 11:8 But what did you go out to see?  A man dressed in soft clothes?
Behold! the ones wearing soft clothes are in the houses of Kings.'
Th 78:2, And to see a man clothed in fine garments like your Kings and your
great men?
Lk 7:25, And what did you go out to see?  A man being dressed in soft
clothing?  Behold! The ones with glorious apparel and living in luxury are
in the palaces.
Line 4
Mt 11:9 But what did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, I tell you--and
one greater than a prophet.
Th 78:3 These are in garments which are soft on them and they cannot know
the truth.
Lk 7:26  But who did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, I say to you--and
more than a prophet

3.Two Different Perspectives

As previously mentioned, the 2DH and the FH share a hidden premise that none
of the Synoptic gospel writers used Th as a source.  As a result, from their
perspective, it probably is either the case that the Synoptic and Th
versions of the saying are independent of each other or else that the Th
version is based on the Synoptic version.

For example, Stephen J. Patterson (a proponent of the 2DH) thusly closes his
discussion of Th 78 in the Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (p. 79), "Since there
is nothing to indicate Thomas' dependence on the synoptic tradition here,
and a number of reasons to doubt such an hypothesis, again it seems prudent
in this case to assume Thomas' basic autonomy vis a vis the synoptic
gospels."

Even if, as he maintains, the hypothesis that the Th version of this saying
is based on the Synoptic version is not supported by the evidence, this does
not indicate that the two versions are independent--*unless*, of course,
one's argument contains the hidden premise that the Synoptic version cannot
be based on the Th version.

However, with the MTH, the premise is that Matthew based Mt 11:7-9 on Th 78,
with Luke then basing Lk 7:24-26 on Mt 11:7-9.  As a result, from this
perspective, the Synoptic version of the saying is based on the Th version
of it.

4. The Contrasts

a. Four Major Contrasts

There are four major differences between the Synoptic and Th versions.
1.while the Synoptic version identifies the subject of the saying as being
John the Baptist,  the Th version does not.
2.while the Synoptic version has Jesus speaking about the wilderness, the Th
version has Jesus speaking about a field.  The underlying Coptic word is
also found in Th 109, where it refers to a field in which a treasure is
uncovered while it is being plowed.
3. only the Synoptic version has Jesus speaking about royal residences.
4.there is a very strong contrast between the Synoptic version, where Jesus
speaks about a prophet (who, presumably knows and speaks the truth), and the
Th version, where Jesus speaks about those who cannot discern the truth.

b. The Perspective of the 2DH and the FH

From the perspective of the 2DH and the FH, these strong contrasts between
the Th and Synoptic versions of the saying are a good indication that they
are independent of each other.  So, for example, Patterson (Ibid., p. 78)
thusly begins his discussion of Th 78,  "Although Thom 78 obviously stems
ultimately from the same tradition as the Q passage taken up in Luke 7:24-27
and Matt 11:7-10, the differences between them are enough to suggest
strongly that here again we may see two entirely different tradition
histories at work.  Chief of these is the fact that in Thomas the saying is
in no way associated with John the Baptist.  If one notes that Thomas
elsewhere freely discusses John (see Thom 46), together with the very
plastic way in which the tradition in Q has been made to refer to John, it
seems very unlikely that Thomas has taken a saying that originally referred
to John and recast it to refer now to Jesus.  Rather, in Thomas we probably
encounter the saying in its more original form."  (Note: while he has the
parallel texts as Mt 11:7-10//Lk 7:24-27, the line schema above shows that
they are Mt 11:7-9//Lk 7:24-26)

In further support of the hypothesis that the two versions of the saying are
independent, it is the case that the Th version progressively diverges from
the Synoptic version: being very close to it in line 2,  moderately close to
it in line 3, and radically different from it in line 4.  This can be
explained under the hypothesis that, in an oral stage of the saying, it was
easiest to remember the beginning of it and hardest to remember the ending
of it.  As a result, through time, the version of it in the Thomas community
and the version of it in the Synoptic community came to progressively
diverge the later the line.

c. The Perspective of the MTH

However, from the perspective of the MTH, these differences are explained
under the hypothesis that Matthew based Mt 11:7-11 on Th 78, but altered it
in some major ways to suit his own purposes.  In particular, under the MTH:.
1. Matthew changes the identity of the person to John the Baptist because he
wants it to apply to John the Baptist
2. Matthew changes the field to the wilderness because he has already stated
in Mt 3:1 that John was in the wilderness
3. Matthew has those in soft clothing residing in royal residences to allude
back to the II(IV) Kings imagery of the King of Israel inside his Samaritan
residence
4. Matthew cannot say that such people are unable to know the truth because
the King of Israel does speak the truth in identifying the hairy man with a
leather girdle as being Elijah.  Also, Matthew wants to make explicit what
is already implicit in what he is writing, i.e., that John is a prophet--the
prophet Elijah.  So, on the fourth line, he omits what is said in Th 78 and
substitutes, for it, some words on John being a prophet.

d. Evaluating the Two Perspectives

From the perspective of the 2DH and the FH, the relationship between the Th
and Synoptic versions of the saying is one of independence.  It adequately
explains the divergences between the two versions.

From the perspective of the FH, the relationship between the Th and Synoptic
versions of the saying is one of Mt 11:7-9 being based on Th 78 (with, in
turn, Lk 7:24-26 being based on Mt 11:7-9).  It, too, adequately explains
the divergences between the two versions.

The bottom line:  As I see it, it's pretty much a dead heat.

Frank McCoy
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

(Note: This is the fourth in a series of five posts)

IV UNIT 2--MT 11:10//LK 10:27//MK 1:2

A. The Texts

Let us now turn to an analysis of unit two, Mt 11:10//Lk 7:27//Mk 2:1.  Here
are the texts for this unit

Line 1
Mt 11:10a  This is about whom it has been written,
Mk 1:2a Just as it has been written in Isaiah the prophet,
Lk 7:27a This is about whom it has been written
Line 2
Mt 11:10b Behold I send my messenger before your face,
Mk 1:2b,  Behold! I send my messenger before your face,
Lk 7:27b Behold!  I send my messenger before your face,
Line 3
Mt 11:10c who will prepare your way in front of you.
Mk 1:2c, who will prepare your way.
Lk 7:27b who will prepare your way in front of you.

B This Presents Problems for the 2DH

1. A Basic Problem for the 2DH

In line 1, note that Mk 1:2 is quite unlike Mt 11:10a//Lk 7:27a.  Indeed,
its Matthean and Lukan parallels occur in Lk 3:4a//Mt 3:3a:
Lk 3:4a As it has been written in the book of the words of Isaiah the
prophet,
Mt 3:3a For this is the one spoken [of] through Isaiah the prophet, saying,
Mk 1:2a Just as it has been written in Isaiah the prophet,

In marked contrast. in line 1, note that Mt 11:10a and Lk 7:27a are, in the
Greek, identical ("Houtos estin peri hou
gegraptai").

Thus, while Mk 1:2a is from the Markan tradition, Mt 11:10a//Lk 7:27a come
from a completely different and, hence, non-Markan, tradition.

Indeed, according to the classic definition of Q, which is that it consists
of
non-Markan material common to Lk and Mt, Mt 11:10a and Lk 7:27a come from Q,
i.e., from Q 7:27a.

In lines 2 and 3, all three passages are very close to each other.  For
example, let us look at the original Greek of line 3:
Mk 1:2c hos kataskeuasei ten hodon sou.
Mt 11:10c hos kataskeuasei ten hodon sou emprosthen sou
Lk 7:27c hos kataskeuasei ten hodon sou emprosthen sou
As can be seen, the first five words for each one is identical.

According to the classic definition of Q, this triple tradition material is
based on Mk rather than Q.

So, according to the classic definition of Q::
1. the introduction to the quotation in Mt 10a//Lk 7:27a comes from Q
but:
2. the quotation itself in Mt 10b-c//Lk 7:27b-c comes from Mk.

This presents a major problem for the 2DH.  It is implausible to think that
Matthew and Luke would independently choose the same passage from Q to
immediately precede a passage from Mk that, in Mk, occurs in a quite
different context.  Yet, it is a basic premise of the 2DH that Matthew and
Luke acted indepentely of each other.

2. The Proposed Solution

The IQP solution is that, despite failing to meet the classic definition of
Q, Mt 11:10b-c//Lk 7:27b-c does come from Q.  What we have in Mk 1:2b-c//Mt
11:10b-c//Lk 7:27b-c, then, is a  Mk-Q overlap.  As a result, in Mt
11:10//Lk 7:27, both the introduction to the quote and the quote itself come
from Q, thereby solving the problem.

Presumably, although I don't know this for a fact, they chose this solution
for two reasons.

First, Mt 11:10c//Lk 7:27c share a phrase (i.e.,  emprosthen sou) which is
absent from Mk 1:2c. In this case, the argument is that, as (1) this phrase
fits the classic definition of Q, and as (2) it is integral to the version
of the quotation found in Mt 11:10b-c and Lk 7:27b-c, it is the case that
(3) Mt 11:10b-c//Lk 7:27b-c apparently comes from Q.


Second, the adjacent material on both sides of Mt 11:10//Lk 7:27, at least
in the range from Mt 11:2//Lk 7:18 to Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28, are both (1)
strongly parallel and (2) fit the classic definition of Q.  So, it would
appear, Mt 11:2-11//Lk 7:18-28 are based on a Q passage, i.e., Q 7:18-28.
Therefore, it would appear, Mt 11:10//Lk 7:27 are two versions of a verse
that is an integral part of a Q passage.

3. However, This Solution Raises More Problems

a. How Does One Explain the Literary Dependency?

However, this solution, in turn, raises three major problems for the 2DH.

First, the three versions of the quotation are so close that literary
dependency appears to be necessitated.

Possibly, the author Q and Mk utilized a common written source.  However,
for line 3, there is no known passage in the LXX or in any other known
Jewish work circulating in the first century CE with the five identical
Greek words shared by Mk, Mt, and Lk.  So, this explanation lacks
plausibility.

Possibly, the author of Q used Mk as a source  However, then Q is later than
Mk--which is contrary to the judgment call (of most advocates of the 2DH)
that Q was written before Mk.  Further, this shrinks the time between the
writing of Q and the writing of Mt, perhaps to the vanishing point.  So,
this doesn't appear to be a good solution either.

If Mark used Q as a source, these two problems disappear.

Perhaps for this reason, this is the solution chosen by Burton Mack.  So, in
The Lost Gospel (p. 179), he states, "And, as scholars know, there are a
myriad of interesting points at which the so-called overlaps between Mark
and Q show Mark's use of Q material for his own narrative design."

But, is this a good explanation for the situation as respects Mt 11:10//Lk
7:27//Mk 1:2?

A little later (p. 242), Mack states, "Mark used the Malachi citation (Mal.
3:1) in combination with a forceful prediction from Isaiah about a voice
crying in the wilderness (Isa. 40:3) to introduce John at the very beginning
of his story.  Matthew and Luke undid this combination, using the Isianic
prediction to introduce John at the appropriate point toward the beginning
of their stories, while reserving the Malachi prediction for its proper
annunciation by Jesus, just as Q had it (Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:27)."

So, this is the proposed scenario:
1. the author of Q made the Malachi citation in Q 7:27
2. Mark moved it to the beginning of his gospel, where he linked it with a
citation of Isaiah 40:3.
3. Matthew and Luke saw what Mark did and independently agreed that Mark was
correct in citing Isaiah 40:3 where he did, but  that he shouldn't have
moved the Malachi citation from its Q context to the Markan context for the
citing of Isaiah 40:3
4. Therefore, each one of them independently left the citing of Isaiah 40:3
in its Markan context, but moved the Malachi citation back to its Q context.

This is all possible.  However, it is a rather complicated scenario which
requires Matthew and Luke to independently go through the same sequence of
thoughts and actions.  So, its plausibility is rather suspect.

In addition, even on a generic level, the explanation that Mark used Q as a
source has enough problems for many scholars to doubt its validity.  For
example, in Excavating Q (p. 80), John Kloppenborg-Verbin states, "But
scholars are very much divided on the question of whether Mark knows the
final form of Q or merely shares some tradition with Q.  That latter view
seems preferable, for Mark does not show any signs of knowing what is
distinctive of Q's redaction."

So, the 2DH apparently does not have a good explanation for the
apparent literary dependency between Mk 1:2c and Mt 11:10c//Lk 7:27c.

b. This is Opening a Pandora's Box

If the explanation of a Mk-Q overlap is correct, then it necessitates that Q
had been bigger than as posited under the classic definition of Q.

This creates a second major problem for the 2DH.  That is, once it is
admitted that Q had been bigger than as posited under the classic definition
of Q, then almost any passage in Mt and Lk becomes a candidate for having Q
as a source.  For example, if a passage is found only in Lk, it still might
come from Q--for it might be that the Lukan passage is based on a Q passage
that was utilized by Luke, but omitted by Matthew.

The bottom line: in taking this step, the proponents of the 2DH have opened
a Pandora's box and there seems to be no way for them to get it re-closed or
even, to manage to keep the lid just slightly ajar.

3. A Common Omission--and More!

Under the proposed solution, Matthew and Luke each saw the quotation in two
spots, i.e., Mk 1:2 and Q:7-27.  Further, each chose to omit the Markan
location for it (for, if they had chosen that location, they would have
placed the quote in Mt 3:3//Lk 3:4) and to use it in its Q location.

This raises questions about whether Matthew and Luke were (as required in
the 2DH) acting independently.

Kloppenborg-Verbin (Ibid., p. 34)addresses this problem, stating,
"In most cases, common omissions do not require the supposition of
collaboration between Matthew and Luke but arise instead from similar
responses to the text of Mark.  For example, in Mark 1:1-6, Matthew and Luke
both omit Mark 1:2b ( = Mal 3:1), a quotation that Mark erroneously ascribed
to Isaiah, perhaps because of Mark's error or because Matthew and Luke had
the Malachi quotation on Jesus' lips in Q (Q 7:27).  The omission of Mark
1:2b, however, must be seen in the fuller context of the treatment of Mark
by Matthew and Luke: Matthew also omits Mark's 'baptism of repentence for
the forgiveness of sins' (which Luke retains).  Luke omits the description
of John's dress and food (which Matthew retains).  In other words, to focus
only on Matthew's and Luke's joint omission of Mark 1:2b is to distort the
evidence.  It is not a case of Matthew and Luke always agreeing in omitting
the same Markan material; here, both omit various materials from Mark and
they coincide in *one* of those omissions."

However, "in Mark 1:1-6", Mark 1:2b is not the only common omission by
Matthew and Luke--for each also omits Mk 1:1.

Further, we have these six steps taken by each of them:
1. omitting Mk 1:1
2. replacing it with his version of Mk 1:4 (see Mt 3:1-2//Lk 3:2-3)
3. writing his version of  Mk 1:2a (see Mt 3:3a//Lk 3:4a)
4. writing his version of Mk 1:2b somewhere else in his gospel (see Mt
11:10b-c//Lk 7:27b-c)
5. prefacing his writing of Mk 1:2b somewhere else in his gospel with the
words, "Houtos estin peri hou gegraptai" (see Mt 11:10a//Lk 7:27a)
6. writing his version of Mk 1:3 (see Mt 3:3b//Lk 3:4b-6)

This is readily explicable under the FH.  First, Matthew took these six
steps.  Second, Luke saw what Matthew did and approved of it and, so, took
these same six steps himself.

For any one of these steps, the 2DH can come up with an explanation:
1. Mk 1:1 is the introduction to Mark's gospel and, since Luke and Matthew
started their gospels earlier with infancy narratives, each decided that he
did not need to use Mk 1:1
2. However, Mk 1:2-3 does need something to introduce it, and Mk 1:4
actually acts as a good introduction, so each decided to replace Mk 1:1 with
Mk 1:4.
3. Each is just following Mk
4. there was another version of the quotation in Q and Luke and Matthew each
decided to use it in its Q context
5. the preface, with its identical wording, comes from Q and each decided to
use it without a single variation
6. Each is just following Mk.

However, that Matthew and Luke act in concert for all six steps brings into
*serious* question one of the basic premises upon which the 2DH is based,
i.e., the premise that Matthew and Luke acted independently of each other.

B  Analysis of the Quotation

Let us now turn to an analysis of the quotation: which is found in Mt 11:10,
Lk 7:27 and Mk 1:2.  Above, Crossan, Burton, and Kloppenborg-Verbin all
speak of it is a quotation of Mal 3:1.  However, for reasons given below, I
think it more likely that it is a quotation of Ex 23:20.

Here is the first part of the quotation and parallels in Mal and Ex:
Mk 1:2b Idou apostellw ton aggelon mou pro proswpou sou
Mt 11:10b Idou egw apostellw ton aggelon mou pro proswpou sou
Lk 7:27b Idou apostellw ton aggelon mou pro proswpou sou
Ex  23:20a (LXX)  Kai idou egw apostellw ton aggelon mou pro porswpou sou
Ex 23:20a (Philo) Idou apostellw ton aggelon mou pro proswpou sou
Mal 3:1a (LXX)  Idou ezapostellw ton aggelon mou

Point 1: Mk 1:2b, Lk 7:27b, and the Philonic version of Ex 23:20a (which is
found in Mig. 174) are identical.

Point 2: Mt 11:10 is identical to Mk 1:2b and Lk 7:27, except that it has
the added word of "egw"--which word is also found in the LXX version of Ex
23:20a.

Point 3: Indeed, Mt 11:10 is almost identical to the LXX version of Ex
23:20a, only lacking the arguably redundant initial word of "kai (and)".

According to the FH, first Mark wrote his version of the first part of the
quotation, basing it on a non-LXX version of Ex 23:20a also utilized by
Philo in Mig 174.  Next, Matthew saw what Mark did.  Matthew decided to make
his version of the first part of the quotation closer to that of the LXX.
So, in his version, he added the LXX version's word of "egw".  Further,
Matthew decided to change the context for the citing of the quotation.
Finally, Luke saw what both Mark and Matthew did.  He decided to use the
Markan version of the first part of the quotation.  However, he went along
with Matthew in changing the context for the citing of the quotation

According to the 2DH, there initially were two versions of the first part of
the quotation:
1. the Markan version, which is based on a non-LXX version of Ex 23:20a also
utilized by Philo in Mig 174
2. the Q version, which is based on the LXX version of Ex 23:20a, and only
lacks the arguably redundant "kai (and)".
Next, Matthew looked at the two versions and chose the Q version, while Luke
also looked at the two versions and chose the Markan version.  Further, both
Matthew and Luke decided to use the Q context for the quotation rather than
the Markan context for its location.

Each explanation, IMO, is plausible.  Further, neither explanation has an
obvious major problem.  So, ISTM, they are, basically, on even par with each
other.

Here is the second part of the quotation and parallels in Ex and Mal:
Mk 1:2c hos kataskeuasei ten hodon sou.
Mt 11:10c hos kataskeuasei ten hodon sou emprosthen sou
Lk 7:27c hos kataskeuasei ten hodon sou emprosthen sou
Ex 23:20b (LXX)  ina phylaze se en te hodw
Ex 23:20b (Philo)  ina phylaze se en te hodw
Mal. 3:1b (LXX) kai epiblepheta hodon pro prosopon mou

Point 1: Mt 11:10c and Lk 7:27c are identical.

Point 2: Mk 1:2c is identical to them except in not having their final
phrase of "emprosthen sou".

Point 3.  None of these three Synoptic gospel passages is even close to Ex
23:20b or Mal 3:1b.  Their "hodon" matches the "hodon"in Mal 3:1b, but this
is not remarkable.  Their "ten hodon" is related to the "te hodw" of Ex
23:20b, but this is not remarkable either.

This second line not only isn't close to either Ex 23:20b or Mal 3:1b.
Beyond that, to the best of my knowledge, it isn't even close  to any other
passage in the Hebrew scriptures--or, for that matter, in any known
non-canonical Jewish text dating to the first century CE or earlier.

This leaves us with the options:
1. this is the citation of a passage from a now-lost Jewish text
2. this is a syncretic blend of several passages from who knows where
3. this is a radically altered version of Mal 3:1b
4, this is a radically altered version of Ex 23:20b

Since the first line is a quotation of Ex 23:20a, my judgment is that this
second line is most likely to be a radically altered version of Ex 23:20b.

But why would anyone make such a drastic alteration of Ex 23:20b?

In the case of Mark, there is a ready explanation.  That is, he radically
altered Ex 23:20b so as to create a smooth transition between his
immediately preceding citation of Exod 23:20a and his immediately following
citation of Isaiah 40:3.

In the case of the author of Q, there is no readily apparent explanation as
to why (s)he would do this.

So, it appears, the situation favors the FH here.  In this case, Mark cited
Ex 23:20a-b: closely following its first line, but radically altering its
second line in order to create a smooth transition to his immediately
following citing of Isaiah 40:3.  Then, Matthew lifted Mark's version of Ex
23:20a-b and moved it to a different context (i.e., Mt 11:7-11) and mildly
edited it (adding the "ego" and the "emprosthen sou".  Finally, Luke saw
what Matthew did and approved of it except for a few details, e.g., he did
not go along with adding "ego"  to the quote.  So, Lk 7:24-28 is his version
of Mt 11:7-11.

C. Concluding Remarks

As respects Mt 11:10//Lk 7:27//Mk 1:2, it appears that the FH is superior to
the 2DH in explaining the situation.  Indeed, the 2DH has major problems
that bring into question its credibility as a viable hypothesis.

Frank McCoy
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

(Note: This is the fifth in a series of five posts)

V UNIT 3--MT 11:11//LK 7:28//TH 46

A. The Text of Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28

Next, let us turn to an analysis of unit 3,  MT 11:11//LK 7:28//TH 46.

We will begin with Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28, which reads:
Line 1
Mt 11:11a Truly, I say to you, there has not arisen among [those] born of
women greater that John the Baptist,
Lk 7:28a I say to you, among those born of women, no one is greater than
John
Line 2
Mt 11:11b but the least in the Kingdom of the Heavens is greater than him..
Lk 7:28b But the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than him.

B. The Perspectives of the 2DH and the FH

Mt 11:11 and Lk 7:28 are so closely parallel that a literary relationship
between them is necessitated.

According to the 2DH, the nature of the literary relationship is that both
Mt 11:11 and Lk 7:28 are based on Q 7:28.

According to the FH, the nature of the literary relationship is that first
Matthew wrote Mt 11:11 and then Luke based Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.

Which explanation is more likely to be correct?

C. The Least in the Kingdom of God

Well, one of the striking features of Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28 is a reference to
the least in the Kingdom:
Mt 11:11b but the least (mikroteros) in the Kingdom of the Heavens is
greater than him..
Lk 7:28b But the least (mikroteros) in the Kingdom of God is greater than
him.

This feature is Matthean.  This is because, while a different Greek word is
used, the same concept of the least in the Kingdom is found in a uniquely
Matthean passage, i.e., Mt 5:19, "Therefore, whoever breaks one of these
least (alachistwn) commandments and teaches this to men, he will be called
least (alachistos) in the Kingdom of the Heavens."

This is, thus, an indication that Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28 originated with Matthew
rather than with the author of Q.

D. A Thematic Progression Only in Mt

1 Introduction

There is another indication that Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28 originated with Matthew
rather than with the author of Q.  That is, there appears to be a thematic
development in Mt 11:10-11//Lk 7:27-28 that that continues into Mt 11:12 but
not into Lk 7:29.

2. The Significance of the Quotation Apparently Being Ex 23:20a-b

As pointed out in Section IV, the quotation in Mt 11:10//Lk 7:27
appears to be Ex 23:20a-b rather than Mal 3:1.  This is very significant
because this radically effects how this quotation is to be interpreted.

If the quote is of Mal 3:1, then the speaker is God and the one being spoken
to is Jesus and the angel/messenger is John--presumably as Elijah come
again.  So, in Q and the History of Early Christianity (p. 133), Christopher
M. Tuckett states, "Unlike the MT of Mal 3:1, the text quoted in Q 7:27 has
the speaker (presumably God) speaking about a messenger (John) directing his
words to someone else (presumably for Q, Jesus).  (In Mal 3:1 God says that
he will send his messenger ahead of himself; in Q God says 'I will send my
messenger before *you* to prepare *your* way',)  Thus John is the expected
Elijah who will prepare the way for *Jesus*.  Hence, in v. 27 there is an
emphatically positive statement about John's status, coupled with an implied
corollary that John's significance is only to be seen relation to that of
Jesus."

However, the situation is quite different if the quote is of Ex 23:20a-b.

Here is LXX Ex 23:20:
And, behold, I send my angel/messenger before your face, that he may keep
you in the way, that he may bring you into the land which I have prepared
for you.

In the context, the "you" are the people of God (see Ex 23:22b, "You shall
be to me a peculiar people above all the nations".).  In particular, they
are the Israelites who have left Egypt and are now in the wilderness.

In the context, the land which God has prepared for them is Palestine.

In the context, the identity of the angel/messenger is not clear.  If it is
an angel, then it is a divine being.  If it is a messenger, then it is
Moses--who led the people of God to the Promised Land.

The writers of the DSS apparently took the angel/messenger to be Moses.  So,
regarding a slightly later incident related in Ex 24:18a ("And Moses went
into the midst of the cloud"), it is stated in 4Q377, "And Moses the man of
God (was) with God in the cloud and the cloud covered him.  For...when he
was hallowed and out of His mouth he spoke like an angel.  For who is a
messenger like him?"

In Exodus II, Philo first identifies this angel/messenger as being the
Logos.  So, regarding Ex 23:20-21, he states (13), "Of necessity was the
Logos appointed as judge and mediator who is called 'angel'."

However, soon thereafter (16), he speaks of this angel/messenger being a
prophet, stating, "What is the meaning of the words (in Ex. 23:22), 'If
hearing thou wilt hear My voice and thou wilt do all that I say to thee, I
shall be an enemy to thine enemies and I will oppose those who oppose thee'?
Because some men do not hearken when hearing or, rather, pretend not to have
heard, He has specified in this passage, 'If hearing ye will hear My voice,'
(which), it must be supposed, refers to the angel mentioned a little while
ago.  For the prophet of Him who speaks is properly an angel."

Although the translator continues to translate the underlying word as
"angel", I think the meaning of it has shifted here to "messenger", with the
idea being that this messenger is Moses.  The reason I think this way is
that Philo believed Moses to be "the prophet of Him".  See, for example,
Moses II (257-258), where Philo states, "All these myraids were persuaded by
Moses to sing with hearts in accord with the same song, telling of those
mighty and marvellous works which I have recorded just above.  And the
prophet, rejoicing at this, seeing the people also overjoyed, and himself no
longer able to contain his delight, led off the song, and his hearers massed
in two choirs sang with him the story of these same deeds.  It was thus that
Moses began and opened his work as a prophet possessed by God's Spirit."

Further, Philo frequently interpreted passages on two levels--the literal
level and the inner meaning level.  So, I think we have a case, in Exodus
II, where Philo is interpeting Ex 23:20 on both of these two levels: with
the angel/messenger being the messenger Moses on the literal level and being
an angel, i.e., the Logos, on the level of its inner meaning.

In any event, it appears that there was some differences of opinion over
whether this angel/messenger was a divine angel or a human messenger.  When
he was taken to be a human messenger, he was taken to be Moses.  Judging by
what Philo states in Exodus II (16),  as this messenger, Moses was believed
to have acted as a prophet.

So, to summarize, in terms of first century CE Jewish thought, it apparently
was understood that, in the original context of Ex 23:20:
(1) the speaker is God
(2) "you" are the people of God who are in the wilderness
(3) the land prepared for the people of God is Palestine
(4) the angel/messenger is a divine being if an angel, but Moses (likely in
the role of being a prophet) if a messenger.

4. How Intepreted in the New Context of c. 30 CE

In Mt 11:10//Lk 7:27, I suggest, it is further understood that history
is repeating itself in that Ex 23:20 is applicable anew in a new context.
In this new context, the "you" are the new people of God, i.e., those who
are in the wilderness to see John (Mt 11:7//Lk 7:24).  As for John, he is
the new messenger and, like the original messenger (i.e., Moses), he acts in
the role of a prophet (Mt 11:9-10//Lk 11:26-27).

As for the new land that is prepared for the new people of God,  it is the
Kingdom--as is made clear in the ensuing Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28:
Line 1
Mt 11:11a Truly, I say to you, there has not arisen among [those] born of
women greater that John the Baptist,
Lk 7:28a I say to you, among those born of women, no one is greater than
John
Line 2
Mt 11:11b but the least in the Kingdom of the Heavens is greater than him..
Lk 7:28b But the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than him.

Here, the stress is on John being a second Moses the prophet.  Because of
this, even the previously incomparable Moses (e.g., note the previously
cited 4Q377, "For who is a messenger like him?") now has someone on par with
him--a someone about whom it can, therefore, be said, there is no one born
of a woman higher than himself.

Further, as the original messenger,  Moses the prophet, led the original
people of God (i.e., those in the wilderness because they have fled from
Egypt) to the original land prepared for them (i.e., Palestine), but did not
enter into it himself, so, now, the new messenger, who is the new Moses the
prophet (i.e., John), leads the new people of God (i.e., those in the
wilderness because they want to see him) to the new land prepared for them
(i.e., the Kingdom), but has not entered into it himself--which is why even
the least in the Kingdom is greater than he.

Therefore, in Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28, John is given the exalted role of being a
prophet like unto Moses.  As such, he is being viewed as being the fulfiller
of  Deuteronomy 18:18-19, which is thusly cited in 4Q175 (4-5):
The Lord spoke to Moses saying:..."I will raise up for them a Prophet like
unto you from among their brethren.  I will put words into his mouth and he
shall tell them all that I command him.  And I will require a reckoning of
whoever will not listen to the words which the Prophet shall speak in my
Name."

This relates back to the preceding Mt 11:9//Lk 7:26:
Mt 11:9 But what did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, I tell you--and
one greater than a prophet.
Lk 7:26  But who did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, I say to you--and
more than a prophet

In this case, then they can be roughly paraphrased::
But who did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, the prophet Elijah come
again.  Yet he is more than just a prophet--for he is also *the* Prophet,
i.e., the Prophet like unto Moses.

Compare John 1:21, where some priests and Levites from Jerusalem are
questioning John the Baptist:
And they asked him, "What, then?  Are you Elijah?"  And he says, "I am not!"
"Are you the Prophet?"  And he answered, "No!"

Here, it appears, John the Evangelist is polemicizing against the viewpoint
that John the Baptist was Elijah come again and/or the Prophet--the Prophet
like unto Moses.  This polemicizing would not have been done by John the
Evangelist unless he was aware that there those who believed John the
Baptist to be Elijah and/or the Prophet like unto Moses.

To summarize, the idea in Mt 11:10-11/Lk 7:27-28 appears to be on how
salvation history has, in a significant sense, repeated itself.  First, and
this is on the implicit level of the narrative, there was the time of the
first Exodus.  Then the people of God (i.e., those who had left Egypt) in
the wilderness were led by the prophet Moses to the Promised Land (i.e.,
Palestine), but he did not enter into it himself.  Second, and this is on
the explicit level of the narrative, there was the time for the second
Exodus..  Then the people of God in the wilderness (i.e., those who came to
see John) were led by this prophet like unto Moses to the Promised Land
(i.e., the Kingdom), but he did not enter into it himself.

4. The Thematic Development Continues in Mt 11:12 But Not in Lk 7:29

  There is a progression of this theme in Mt 11:12, "And from the days of
John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of the Heavens is forcibly entered
and violent men sieze it."

Thus,  as at the time of the Exodus, the people of God (i.e., those who left
Egypt) forcibly entered the Promised Land (i.e., Palestine) and violently
siezed it, so, now, the people of God (i.e., those who came to see John)
forcibly enter the Promised Land (i.e., the Kingdom) and violently seize it.

However, this theme is abandoned in Lk 7:29, "And all the people and the tax
collectors, having listened, justified God, having been baptized with the
baptism of John."

This situation is readily explicable under the hypothesis that this is a
theme which was created and developed by Matthew in Mt 11:10-12..  If so,
then Luke 7:27-28 is based on Mt 11:10-11, but Luke 7:29 is a Lukan
substitute for Mt 11:12.

E. The Argument for Mt 11:7-15 being a Matthean Creation

1 Linkages of Mt 3:1-4 to Mt 11:7-15
.
Indeed, there is evidence that not just Mt 11:11-12 is a Matthean creation,
but, beyond it, all of Mt 11:7-15 as well.

What I am referring to are these linkages of Mt 3:1-4 to Mt 11:7-15

1. Mt 3:1
Mt 3:1a Now in those days comes John the Baptist preaching in the
*wilderness*
Mt 11:7b What did you go out into the *wilderness* to see?

Comment: here Mt 3:1 links to the other passages through the word
"wilderness"

2. Mt 3:2
Mt 3:2  saying, 'Repent, for has come near *the Kingdom of the Heavens*.
Mt 11:11b but the least in *the Kingdom of the Heavens* is greater than
him..
Mt 11:12a And from the days of John the Baptist until now, *the Kingdom of
the Heavens* is forcibly entered

Comment: here Mt 3:2 links to the other passages through the phrase *the
Kingdom of the Heavens*

3. Mt 3:3
Mt 3:3a For this is the one spoken [of] through Isaiah the *prophet*
Mt 11:9 But what did you go out to see?  A *prophet*?  Yes, I tell you--and
one greater than a *prophet*
Mt 11:13a "For all the *prophets* and the Law prophecied until John

Comment: here Mt 3:3 links to the other passages through the word
"prophet(s)".  Note that, while Matthew has the order of (1) the Law and (2)
the prophets in 5:17 and 22:40, he reverses the order to (1) the prophets
and (2) the Law in 11:13a in order to lay stress on the word "prophets".

Mt 3:4a Now John, himself, had his clothing from [the] hairs of a camel and
a leather belt around his waist,
Mt 11:8a But what did you go out to see?  A man dressed in soft clothes?
Mt 11:14a And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah

Comment: here Mt 3:4 links to the other passages through the description of
the clothing of John.  Since this clothing is rough, it links to Mt
11:8a--where the questions are rhetorical and are based on the understanding
that John wore rough clothing.  Since this clothing is also the clothing of
Elijah in II (IV) Kings 1:8, this links it to Mt 11:14a--where John is said
to be Elijah

Here is the schema of the linkages of Mt 3:1-4 to Mt 11:7-15:
Mt 3:1-4   Mt 11:7-11  Mt 11:12-15
3:1          11:7            ---
3:2          11:10-11    11:12
3:3          11:9           11:13
3:4          11:8           11:14-15

When one omits the first linkage of Mt 3:1 to Mt 11:7, then, where:
A = a passage which links to Mt 3:2
B = a passage which links to Mt 3:3
C = a passage which links to Mt 3:4
this mirror symmetrical schema results:
11:8         C
11:9         B
11:10-11 A
-------mirror plane-----
11:12       A
11:13       B
11:14-15 C

Further, this mirror symmetrical schema directly relates to the Prophetology
(is there such a word?) of John the Baptist in Matthean thought:
1. The two A units (11:10-11, 11:12 regard John as *the* Prophet, i.e., the
prophet like unto Moses. 11:10 is the citation of Ex 23:20 and 11:11 and
11:12 develop the scenario of the new Exodus to the new Promised Land of the
Kingdom, with this prophet like unto Moses, like the prophet Moses earlier,
leading the people of God to the Promised Land, but not entering himself.
2. The two C units (11:8 and 11:14-15) regard John as Elijah the Prophet.
This is explicit in 11:14-15.  This is implicit in 11:8, which links to Mt
3:4 which, in turn, links to II(IV) Kings 1:8.
3. The two B units (11:9 and 11:13) have linkage with each other and with
3:3 through the word "prophet(s)".  The word is singular in 11:9 since we
are dealing with one person, i.e., John the Baptist.  The word is plural in
11:13 because he embodies, in himself, two awaited prophets, i.e., Elijah
the Prophet come again and the Prephet like unto Moses

So, it appears, Mt 11:7-15 is a Matthean creation, rooted in Mt 3:1-4, in
which Matthew outlines his Prophetology of John the Baptist.  As a result,
it appears, it supports the FH.

Conversely, under the 2DH, as:
1. Mt 11:7-11//Lk 7:24-28 is based on Q 7:24-28
and as:
2. the classic definition of Q is that it consists of the non-Markan
material common to Mt and Lk
then, as:
3. Mt 11:7-11/Lk 7:24-28 has connectivity with each of the four verses in Mt
3:1-4
it should be the case that:
4. each of the verses in Mt 3:1-4 has a Lukan parallel in Lk 3:1-6.
However, there is no Lukan parallel for either Mt 3:2 or Mt 3:4: meaning
that, it appears, the 2DH cannot explain this situation.

So, it appears,  the sequence for Mt 11:7-11//Lk 7:24-28 is that first
Matthew wrote Mt 11:7-11 and then Luke based Lk 7:24-28 on Mt 11:7-11.

F Concluding Remarks on Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28

It appears that Lk 7:28 is based on Mt 11:11.  The concept of the least in
the Kingdom appears to be Matthean--which suggests that Matthew wrote Mt
11:11 and Luke based Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.  There is a thematic development
in Mt 11:10-12 that is also found in Lk 7:27-28, but is prematurely ended in
Lk 7:29 and this situation appears to reflect Luke basing Lk 7:27-28 on Mt
11:10-11, but substituting what he writes in Lk 7:29 for what he saw in Mt
11:12.  Third, Mt 11:11 is a part of a larger unit, i.e.,  Mt 11:7-15, that
appears to have been written by Matthew and this suggests that first Mt
wrote Mt 11:11 and then Luke based Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.

As a result, when just analyzing  Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28, so that Th 46 is not
taken into account, the FH appears to be clearly superior to the 2DH

G. Mt 11:11//Lk 7:24-26Th 46

1. The Texts

Next, let us turn to Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28//Th 46:
Line 1
Mt 11:11a Truly, I say to you, there has not arisen among [those] born of
women greater that John the Baptist,
Th 46:1 Said Jesus this, From Adam up to John the Baptist, among the
begotten of woman, no one is raised up above John the Baptist so that to
break his eyes.
Lk 7:28a I say to you, among those born of women, no one is greater than
John
Line 2
Mt 11:11b but the least in the Kingdom of the Heavens is greater than him.
Th 46:2 However, I spoke this: He among you who will come to being a little
one, he will know the Kingdom and will be raised above John.
Lk 7:28b But the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than him.

2. The Major Differences

There are at least three major differences between the Synoptic and Th
versions of this saying::
1. Only Th 46 has the phrase "From Adam up to John the Baptist"
2. Only Th 46 has the phrase "so that to break his eyes"
3. In Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28, it is the least in the Kingdom who are greater than
John while, in Th 46, it is a little one who knows the Kingdom who is
greater than John..

3. Which Version is Earlier?

a.  The First Two Differences are Ambiguous

As respects the first two major differences, it appears that either Matthew
and Luke shorten the saying by omitting two phrases found in Th 46 or else
Thomas lengthens the saying by adding two phrases not found in Mt 11:11//Lk
7:28, but there doesn't appear to be a clear indication as to which
alternative is preferable.

b. But the Third Favors the MTH

As respects the third major difference, though, there appears to be a clear
indication that Th 46 is earlier than Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28.

In both Mt 11:11a//Lk 7:28a and Th 46:1, the stress is on the idea that no
one born of a woman is greater than John.

What one would expect, then, in Mt 11:11b//Lk 7:28b and Th 46:2, is a stress
on the idea that anyone reborn not of a woman is greater than John.

Indeed, this appears to be the case in Th 46:2, where the one greater than
John is a "little one" who "knows" the Kingdom.  This relates to Th 22:1,
where Jesus states, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter
the Kingdom."

As a result, the "little one" is an infant in the sense of being someone who
has just been reborn not of a woman and such a babe knows the Kingdom
because such a babe has entered into the Kingdom.

Compare John 3:3, where Jesus says, "Amen.  Amen.  I say to you, unless
someone is born again, he is not able to enter the Kingdom of God."

However, this is not the case in Mt 11:11b//Lk 7:26b, where the one greater
than John is one who is least in the Kingdom.

As a result, it appears, the Th 46 version of the saying reflects an
original contrast between one born of a woman and one reborn not of a woman,
while Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28 represents a later stage in the development of the
saying that lacks this original contrast.

This is in accord with the MTH--according to which Mt 11:11 is based on Th
46 and with Luke basing Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.

Indeed, there is a reason why one might expect Matthew to have changed
the Thomasine idea of one greater than John being a little one knowing the
Kingdom into the idea of one greater than John being one who is least in the
Kingdom.  That is, as pointed out above, it appears that the concept of the
least in the Kingdom was pleasing to Matthew.

So, as respects the last major difference between the Synoptic version of
the saying and the Th version of the saying, it  indicates that Th 46
belongs to an earlier stage of development for the saying than does Mt
11:11, and this indication is strengthened by the observation that Matthew
had motivation to alter Th 46:2 into what we see in Mt 11:11b.  As a result,
it appears most likely that Mt 11:11 is based on Th 46.

d. The Baptist

Still, an argment can be made that, rather, Th 46 is based on Mt 11:11.

For example, in Studies in The Gospel of Thomas (p. 62), R. McL Wilson
states the following as respects Th 46, "Grant and Freeman plausibly suggest
that the opening words are modelled on the following verse in Matthew (xi.
12), in which case Thomas has re-written the saying."

The argument here is that this phrase in the first part of Mt 11:12:
And from the days of John the Baptist until now
is the inspiration for this phrase in the first part of Th 46:
From Adam up to John the Baptist.

Indeed, there appears to be some sort of literary relationship here: for
each is a temporal phrase in which "John the Baptist" is a key element.

But, if there be a literary relationship here, which is earlier and which is
later?  Is it the case that the temporal phrase in Th 46 is based on the
temporal phrase in Mt 11:12, or is it the case that the temporal phrase in
Mt 11:12 is based on the temporal phrase in Th 46?

On the basis of a five step argument, I think it most likely that the
temporal phrase in Mt 11:12 is based on the temporal phrase in Th 46.

First, this rule apparently applies:
When using Mk as a source, Matthew uses the appositive of "the Baptist" for
John only when Mark does.

I have found three examples of where Matthew uses this appositive for John
when utilizing Mk as a source and, in each case, an appositive occurs in Mk
as well.  They are Mt 3:1//Mk 1:4, Mt 14:2//Mk 6:14, and Mt 14:8//Mk 6:25.

Second, the expectation, then, is that Matthew will use this appositive of
"the Baptist" elsewhere in Mt only when it appears in a source he is using.

Third, as far as I can tell, there are two examples of where he uses this
appositive elsewhere in his gospel:
1. Mt 11:11
2. Mt 11:12.

Fourth, the inference is that he uses the appositive of "the Baptist" in
these two verses because he sees it in a non-Markan source he is using.

Fifth, the application of the inference is this:
1. As:
  a. Mt 11:11 has a parallel in Th 46
and as:
  b. Th 46 has this appositive
it is the case that:
  c. Matthew used Th 46 as a source in writing Mt 11:11
and:
2. As:
  a. in Mt 11:12, the appositive occurs in a temporal phrase
and as:
b. the appositive also occurs in a related temporal phrase in Th 46
it is the case that:
c. the temporal phrase in Th 46 is the inspiration for the temporal phrase
in Mt 11:12.

As a result, it appears, Matthew used Th 46 as a source for Mt 11:11 and the
first part of Mt 11:12.

In support of this conclusion, it is the case that the appositive of "the
Baptist" is quite necessary in Th 46 because it is the first and only
mention of this John in Th.

However, the appositive of "the Baptist" for John is quite unnecesary in Mt
11:11 because, just a few verses earlier (i.e., in Mt 11:7) Matthew simply
calls him John.

Further, as this appositive does not occur in Lk 7:28, it cannot be
plausibly argued that it occurred in Q 7:28 (Indeed, the IQP does not have
this appositive in Q 7:28)

So, what is anomalous is the appearance of the appositive of "the Baptist"
in Mt 11:11--where it is neither needed nor to be expected.

The most plausible explanation for this situation: Matthew saw this
appositive in Th 46 (where it is needed) and mechanically copied it in Mt
11:11 (where it is not needed).

The bottom line: the evidence appears to indicate that Mt 11:11 is based on
Th 46.  This is inconsistent with the 2DH and the FH--both of which presume
that either Th 46 is based on Mt 11:11 or else Th 46 and Mt 11:11 are
independent of each other.  This is, however, consistent with the
MTH--according to which Matthew used Th as a source in writing his gospel.

4. Deliberate Design?

a. A Pattern

Note that, when:
A = a passage with a parallel in Th
B = a passage without a parallel in Th
it is the case that, in Mt 11:7-11, we have this pattern:
Mt 11:7-9     A
Mt 11:10      B
Mt 11:11      A

b. The Pattern Repeated

  This pattern is repeated in Matt 11:27-30.

It begins with Mt 11:27a ("All things were given to me by my Father."),
which has a parallel in Th 61:3b ("I was given some of the things of my
Father.").

It closes with Mt. 11:28-30 ("Come to me all the ones becoming weary and
being burdened and I will give rest to you.  Take up my yoke upon you and
learn from me, for I am humble and lowly in heart, and you will find rest
for your souls.  For my yoke is easy and the load of it is light."), which
has a parallel in Th 90 ("Jesus said, 'Come unto me, for My yoke is easy and
My lordship is mild, and you will find repose for yourself.").

In-between is a passage without a parallel in Th.

So, here, we have the same A-B-A pattern:
Mt 11:27a     A
Mt 11:27b     B
Mt 11:28-30  A

c. Coincidence or Deliberate Design?

  Is it coincidence that we find the same A-B-A pattern in Mt 11:7-11 and Mt
11:27-30?  Or, is it due to deliberate design--with, in this case, the
author of these two passages using Th as the source for the "A" units?

d. It Appears to be Deliberate Design

IMO, it is very unlikely that this is due to coincidence because Mt 11:7-30
is a monologue of Jesus to the crowds, interrupted only twice with asides by
the author:
1.  Mt 11:20, "Then he began to reproach the cities in which were performed
the majority of his miracles because they did not repent."
2. Mt 11:25, "At that time, having answered, Jesus said,...".

As a result, these two structurally identical units are not randomly placed
but, rather, appear precisely at the beginning and the close of a monologue
by Jesus.

Therefore, they appear to be deliberately placed: and if they have been
deliberately placed then, almost certainly, they have been deliberately
designed as well--with the author basing all the "A" passages on passages
from Th.

e. But, Who, Then, is the Author of Mt 11:7-30?

Who, though, is the author of the monologue of Jesus in Mt 11:7-30?  Is it
the creation of Matthew?  Or, is it Matthew's version of a monologue of
Jesus created by the author of Q?  The answers to these questions are not
self-evident because almost all of Mt 11:7-30 has parallels in Lk and, so,
might come from Q.

f. A Way to Determine the Answers

A way to answering these questions might lie in this line schema for Mk
6:7-11//Mt 8:37-10:16//Lk 10:1-12:

Line 1 Mt 9:37-38
Mt: Then he says to his disciples, ' Indeed, the harvest great, but the
workers few.  Therefore, ask the Lord of the harvest, so that he may send
out workers into his harvest.'
Line 2 Mk 6:7//Lk 10:1//Mt 10:1
Mk And he summons the Twelve and he began to send them out two by two.  And
he was giving to them authority over the unclean spirits
Lk And after these things, the Lord appointed seventy-two others and he
sent them, two by two, before his face into every city and place where he
was about to come
Mt And, summoning his twelve disciples, he gave to them authority [over]
unclean spirits (so as to cast them out) and to heal every disease and every
illness.
Line 3 Lk 10:2-3//Mt 10:2-8
Lk And he was saying to them, 'Indeed, the harvest is plentiful, but the
workers few.  Therefore, ask the Lord of the Harvest that he might send out
workers into his harvest.  Go!  Behold, I send you as lambs in the midst of
wolves.
Mt  Now, of the twelve apostles, the names are these.  First, Simon, the one
called Peter, and Andrew, his brother, and James the [son} of Zebedee and
John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthew, the tax
collector; James the [son] of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean,
and Judas Iscariot--the one also betraying him.  Jesus sent out these
twelve, commanding them, saying, 'Do not go into the way of the Gentiles and
do not enter into a Samaritan city.  But go, instead, to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel--and, going, preach: saying, 'The Kingdom of the Heavens
is near!'  Heal the ailing, raise the dead, clease the lepers, cast out
demons.  Freely you received, freely give.'
Line 4 Mk 6:8-9//Lk 10:4//Mt 10:9-10a
Mk And he gave orders to them that they should take nothing with them on the
road except a walking stick: not bread, nor a knapsack, nor coppers in the
belt (but having had sandals tied on) and do not dress (with) two shirts
Lk Do not carry a purse, nor a beggar's bag, nor sandals, and greet no one
along the way
Mt Do not acquire gold nor silver nor copper in your belts--nor a knapsack
for the road, nor two shirts, nor sandals nor a staff.
Line 5 Lk 10:5-7a//Mt 10:10b
Lk And into what house you enter, first say, Peace to this house, and if
there is a son of peace, upon him your peace will rest: otherwise, on you it
will return.   And in the same house remain: eating and drinking the things
with them--for worthy is the worker of his work.
Mt  For worthy is the worker of his food.
Line 6 Mk 6:10//Lk 10:7b//Mt 10:11
Mk And he was saying to them, 'Wherever you enter into a house, stay there
until you leave from there.
Lk Do not move from house to house.
Mt  And into whichever city or village you enter, inquire who in it is
worthy and there remain until you leave.
Line 7 Lk 10:8-9//Mt 10:12-13
Lk And into whichever city you enter and they receive you, eat the things
being set before you and heal the ones in it who are sick and say to them,
Has come near to you the Kingdom of God.
Mt And, entering into the house, greet it.  And, if indeed the house is
worthy, let come youir peace upon it.  But if it is not worthy, let your
peace return to you.
Line 8 Mk 6:11//Lk 10:10-11a//Mt 10:14
Mk And whatever place does not welcome you, nor listen to you, going out
from there, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony to them.
Lk And into what ever city you enter and they do not receive you, having
gone out into its streets, say, Even the dust of your city, having clinging
to us, to our feet, we shake off [against] you.
Mt And whoever does not receive you, nor listen to your words, going out
outside of the house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Line 9 Lk 10:11b-12//Mt 10:15-16a
Lk But know this: that has come near the Kingdom of God.  I say to you that
for Sodom in that day it will be more bearable than with that city.
Mt  Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and
Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that city.  Behold, I send you as
sheep in the midst of wolves.
Line 10 Mt 10:16b
Mt Therefore be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

There are a number of remarkable features to this line schema.

For the purposes of the present discussion, though, only one of these
remarkable feautres is relevant, i.e., the remarkable feature that both the
first line and the last line of Mt 9:37-10:16 have parallels in Th.

For the first line:
Then he says to his disciples, "Indeed, the harvest great, but the workers
few.  Therefore, ask the Lord of the harvest, so that he may send out
workers into his harvest."
the parallel is Th 73
Jesus said, "The harvest is great but the laborers are few.  Beseech the
Lord, therefore, to send out laborers to the harvest."
For the last line:
Therefore be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
the parallel is Th 39:3:
You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.

Further, while:
(1) the Matthean first line has a parallel in the Lukan version of line 4
and, so, might come from Q
it is the case that:
(2) the Matthean last line has no parallel anwhere in Lk and, therefore,
apparently does not come from Q.

Therefore, this design of having Mt 9:37-10:16 begin and end with a passage
that has a parallel in Th appears to be a design created by Matthew rather
than by the author of Q.

This favors the hypothesis that Mt 11:7-30, which both begins and ends with
a passage that has a parallel in Th, is the creation of Matthew rather than
the creation of the author of Q.

g. Concluding Remarks on A Pattern

Where:
A = a passage with a parallel in Th
B = a passage without a parallel in Th
both Mt 11:7-11 and Mt 11:27-30 have an A-B-A pattern.

Further, this appears to be by deliberate design because they open and close
a monologue of Jesus.  As a result, it appears, the author of Mt 11:7-30
based the "A" passages on passages in Th.

Finally, it appears, the author of Mt 11:7-30 is Matthew rather than the
author of Q.

So, it appears, Matthew created Mt 11:7-30 and used Th as one of his sources
in writing it.

In particular, it appears, Matthew based Mt 11:7-9, Mt 11:11, Mt 11:27a, and
Mt 11:28-30 on passages from Th.

5. Concluding Remarks on Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28//Th 46

It appears that Lk 7:28 is based on Mt 11:11.  The concept of the least in
the Kingdom appears to be Matthean--which suggests that Matthew wrote Mt
11:11 and Luke based Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.  There is a thematic development
in Mt 11:10-12 that is also found in Lk 7:27-28, but is prematurely ended in
Lk 7:29 and this situation appears to reflect Luke basing Lk 7:27-28 on Mt
11:10-11, but substituting what he writes in Lk 7:29 for what he saw in Mt
11:12.  Third, Mt 11:11 is a part of a larger unit, i.e.,  Mt 11:7-15, that
appears to have been written by Matthew and this suggests that first Mt
wrote Mt 11:11 and then Luke based Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.

As a result, when just analyzing  Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28, so that Th 46 is not
taken into account, the FH appears to be clearly superior to the 2DH.

It also appears that Mt 11:11 is based on Th 46.  It appears that Th 46 is
closer to the original meaning of the saying.  The appositive of  "John the
Baptist" also indicates that Mt 11:11 is based on Th 46.  So does the the
apparent deliberate design of Mt 11:7-40.

As a result, when also taking Th 46 into account, the MTH appears to be
superior to both the FH and the 2DH.

VI CONCLUSION

This concludes the examination of Mt 11:7-11//Lk 7:24-28//Mk 1:2//Th 46, 78.

There is considerable evidence to support the 2DH, so it is a viable
hypothesis.  However, some of the evidence does bring into question its
validity.

Further, it appears that the overall weight of the evidence::
1. supports the FH over the 2DH where the discussion of the Synoptic
material does not take into account any Th parallels,
2. supports the MTH over both the 2DH and the FH where the discussion of the
Synoptic material does take into account any Th parallels.

As a result, since the MTH becomes the FH whenever there are no parallel
passages in Th, the cumulative weight of the evidence provided by Mt
11:7-11//Lk 7:24-28//Mk 1:2//Th 46, 78 apparently provides the beginning of
making a credible case for the validity of the 2DH.

Frank McCoy
Maplewood, MN USA 55109