Thomas and the gospelsI've been reading Mark Goodacre's book on this topic. The analysis is thorough, the opposing viewpoint is countered at every stage, and I hope the conclusion will be as convincing to others as it is to me.
In core parts I particularly liked the analysis of the Mt//Th 'Wheat and Tares' and the Lk//Th 'Rich Fool'. In the supporting parts I particularly liked his exposure of the "plagiarist's charter", his observations on harmonization, and his comments on trajectories.
My only quibbles relate to Lk 11:27-28 // Th 79.
Firstly concerning "the only places in the Gospel tradition where teaching is introduced by foil comments from anonymous individuals, always TIS" (Lk 9:57, 11:27, 12:13, 13:23 and 14:15). The problem here is that according to the prevailing 2ST, Q is behind the first example, and it may also be behind the second (c.f. "The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English"). Thus on this basis only three of these foil comments from anonymous individuals look definitely Lukan in origin. p.101 n.10 appears to imply that in Lk 9:57, the IQP regards all Luke's differences from Matthew as redactional. But S.G.Q.G.E does not regard as redactional either Luke's TIS or the absence in Luke of Matthew's DIDASKALE.
As most on this list will know, I'm not a supporter of the 2ST, but I do think that the logia contained Aramaic sayings behind both Lk 11:27-28 and Lk 9:57-60, i.e. contained two cases of foil questions introduced by an anonymous person.
Secondly re p.105, while the word FULASSW (keep, guard) is indeed quite common in Luke and Acts, in treating this word as synonymous with POIEW (do), Mark misses the way Luke often used FULASSW for keeping the (Jewish) law or observances (Lk 18:21; Ac 7:53; 16:4; 21:24,25). As keeping the Jewish law is hardly something about which Luke was enthusiastic, perhaps the use of FULASSW rather than POIEW in Lk 11:28 should alert us to the possibility that this was not redaction, but rather indicates Luke's sense of obligation to preserve from a respected source a saying which originally referred to the Jewish law (as in Lk 16:17). As FULASSW is at the heart of the saying, the case for the Lukan origin of Lk 11:27-28 does not appear to me to be quite as strong as Mark's presentation suggests. (However I do take Luke's "the crowd" and EPARASA ... FWNHN = "raised her voice" as redactional.)
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer.
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.