two L passages (14:1-6)
I may not have stated my point about the discovery of Thomas clearly. Thomas matters in this discussion not because we have a new set of materials about Jesus, but because its discovery reveals the fatal flaw in your statement: "I would say the model which does not include additional lost written sources is better that its competition." Those sources clearly existed, and more may yet be discovered! So a programmic bias against them is a logical and interpretive error, and often leads to tortured interpretation of the passage at hand.
Our L-only healing story (14:1-6) provides at example: "One sabbath when he went to dine at the house of a ruler who belonged to the Pharisees, they were watching him. And behold, there was a man before him who had dropsy. And Jesus spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, 'Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not?' But they were silent. Then he took him and healed him, and let him go. And he said to them, 'Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him out on a sabbath day?' And they could not reply to this."
When Lk radically reworked the triple tradition story of the woman annointing J's feet with expensive ointment, the first change he made was to move the setting from the home of Simon the leper to the home of a Pharisee.
Our L healing story is set where? In the home of a Pharisee. The internal logic of this doesn't work as a Pharisee would not have hosted a dinner party on a sabbath. A simple explanation is that Lk's source had this story set in a synagogue, and Lk changed the setting as he did with the annointing story, inadvertently creating the internal conflict.
But, holy lost source, Batman!, this explanation has Lk editing a, well, you know. If only this passage had shown up in Thomas....
Rev. Chuck Jones
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Although, I should add, we should still be careful about taking the exact numbers too seriously here. There are issue which could be raised to object to the specific numbers. But the general idea is sound.
--- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Gentile" <gentile_dave@...> wrote:
> Works for me.