Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Gk GTh Hidden and Revealed

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    ... Yes indeedy. Here goes... first quoting from Mark s very useful listing of parallels in Greek. ... =========================== Mark s context demands a
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 1, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark wrote:
      > Now there are eight words verbatim agreement here between Luke and Thom
      > (though noting, of course, that there is some need for reconstruction in P
      > Oxy 654), and in three of them there is agreement against Mark, OU FANERON
      > GENHSETAI against EAN MH FANERWQHi, as well as the absence of TI from Thom
      > and Luke against Mark. This is minor variation, of course, and in some ways
      > that is why it is striking: it is hardly the kind of variation that will be
      > due to influence of oral tradition.
      >
      > Let me put it another way. Luke is re-writing Mark here and simply
      > changing the wording and structure a little. This is at least prima facie
      > Lukan redaction of Mark. Thomas contains the same wording -- eight words
      > verbatim, three of which agree with Luke against Mark. The natural
      > presumption in such cases is Thomasine dependence on Luke.
      >
      > That is not to say that we might also need to see some clear evidence of
      > distinctively Lukan traits, language, themes and so on. The difficulty for
      > the Oxy P material is that there are not very many triple tradition pieces
      > to go on in the search for Lukan redaction of Mark, and here we come back
      > to Stephen's question: "who is allowed to benefit from the lack of
      > evidence"?
      >
      > I know that Steve has an answer to this, though.

      Yes indeedy. Here goes... first quoting from Mark's very useful
      listing of parallels in Greek.

      > Matt. 10.26: "For nothing is covered that will not be revealed
      > (OUDEN GAR ESTIN KEKALUMMENON hO OUK APOKALUFQHSETAI), or hidden that
      > will not be known (KAI KRUPTON hO OU GNWSQHSETAI"
      >
      > Mark 4.22: "For there is nothing hid except to be made manifest (OU
      > GAR ESTIN TI KRUPTON hO EAN MH FANERWQHi;); nor is anything secret
      > except to come to light (OUDE EGENETO APOKRUFON ALL' hINA ELQHi EIS
      > *FANERON*)
      >
      > Luke 8.17: "For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest (OU GAR
      > ESTIN KRUPTON hO *FANERON* GENHSETAI), nor anything secret that shall
      > not be known and come to light (OUDE APOKRUFON hO OU MH GNWSQHi KAI
      > EIS *FANERON* ELQHi")
      >
      > Luke 12.2: "Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or
      > hidden that will not be known (OUDEN DE SUGKEKALUMMENON ESTIN hO OUK
      > APOKALUFQHSETAI KAI KRUPTON hO OU GNWSQHSETAI).
      >
      > Thomas 5 (Coptic): "Know what is before your face, and that which is
      > hidden from you will be revealed to you. For there is nothing hidden
      > which will not be revealed"
      >
      > POxy 654, lines 27-31 (Fitzmyer's reconstruction): G[NWQI TO ON
      > EMPROS]QEN THS OYEWS SOU, KAI [TO KEKALUMMENON] APO SOU
      > APOKALUF<Q>HSET[AI SOI; OU GAR ES]TIN KRUPTON hO OU *FANE[RON*
      > GENHSETAI] KAI QEQAMMENON hO OUK EGERQHSETAI
      >
      > "Jesus says K[now what is be]fore your face, and [that which is
      > hidden] from you will be reveal[ed to you. For there i]s nothing
      > hidden which will not [be made] mani[fest] and (nothing) buried which
      > will not [be raised up]."
      >
      > Thomas 6 (Coptic) "For there is nothing hidden which will not be
      > revealed, and nothing concealed that will remain without disclosure"
      >
      > POxy 654, lines 38-40 (again Fitzmyer): [OUDEN GAR ESTI]N
      > A[P]OKEKR[UMMENON hO OU *FANERON* ESTAI]
      >
      > "[For there is nothing] hidden [which will not be (made) known]
      ===========================

      Mark's context demands a present
      tense saying, the point being that the lamp is to shine and not
      be hidden, not that the lamp having been hidden will shine. IF Mark
      knew the saying in future tense, his motivation to change it to
      present is understandable.

      Luke, (12:2) reverts Mark's saying to future tense and dispenses with
      Mark's rhetorical lamp question, reverting the Markan saying back toward
      the Thomasine original, which he knows about from Q or Mt 5:15. Here
      he clearly prefers the alternative version to Mark's 4:21.

      So, why is Luke turning Mark's saying into future tense? Because
      he knows of a // saying that is future tense (from Q or Mt 10:26).
      Since we know he knows of a version in future tense, and we know
      that he turned Mark's saying into future tense, we know that he
      thinks the saying ought to be in future tense.

      Possibly he knows of the saying in Markan wording
      that is in future tense.... although he could just have been guided by
      Q or Mt 10:26. In the event, we have three future tense versions...
      Lk//(Mk) Mt//Lk or five, counting Thomas 5, 6, over Mark's
      present tense version deleted by Mt and revised by Lk.

      What do we find in Thomas? Two future tense
      versions. One of them with 5 words in common with Mk//Lk (which
      is just fine with a Mark used Thomas thesis) and 2 in common
      with Luke against Mark BECAUSE Thomas and Luke both
      have future tense.

      So this is not evidence of Th dependence on Lk. It is in fact
      evidence that the original saying, however phrased, was in future
      tense, and that Luke accepted that, and that Mark may have
      revised his original into present tense (Or whatever the hell name
      his tense has....??) and that it is not at all unreasonable to think
      that his original was Thomas 5. Luke's reversion to future tense
      coincidentally also reverted the saying back toward it's Thomasine
      original future tense version.

      Steve
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... What use is Markan priority, if every time Thomas happens to agree with Luke against Mark becomes proof that Luke is more original than his literary
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 1, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:01 PM 10/1/98 -0400, Stevan Davies wrote:
        >So this is not evidence of Th dependence on Lk. It is in fact
        >evidence that the original saying, however phrased, was in future
        >tense, and that Luke accepted that, and that Mark may have
        >revised his original into present tense (Or whatever the hell name
        >his tense has....??) and that it is not at all unreasonable to think
        >that his original was Thomas 5. Luke's reversion to future tense
        >coincidentally also reverted the saying back toward it's Thomasine
        >original future tense version.

        What use is Markan priority, if every time Thomas happens to agree
        with Luke against Mark becomes proof that Luke is more original than
        his literary source?

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... The more that one stares at this example, the more complex it gets. It is rewarding to study this, though, because it does help one to see that synoptic
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 5, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          On 1 Oct 98 at 16:01, Stevan Davies wrote:

          > So this is not evidence of Th dependence on Lk. It is in fact
          > evidence that the original saying, however phrased, was in future
          > tense, and that Luke accepted that, and that Mark may have
          > revised his original into present tense (Or whatever the hell name
          > his tense has....??) and that it is not at all unreasonable to think
          > that his original was Thomas 5. Luke's reversion to future tense
          > coincidentally also reverted the saying back toward it's Thomasine
          > original future tense version.

          The more that one stares at this example, the more complex it gets. It is
          rewarding to study this, though, because it does help one to see that synoptic
          interrelationships are not always cut and dried and straightforward. It indeed
          seems likely that Luke (in 8.17) is redacting Mark (4.22) in the light of that
          alternative version, either from Matthew (10.26), Q (12.2) or (as you would
          think) Thomas (5/6). For Mark 4.22 has two subjunctives (except to be made
          manifest / except to come to light), Luke 8.17 has a future (shall not be made
          manifest) + 2 subjunctives (except in order that it might be made known and
          come to light). Luke's future has perhaps crept in under influence from the
          alternative stream, Matthew, Q, oral trad. -- I agree. This is precisely the
          kind of thing I have in mind when I talk about Luke redacting Mark in the light
          of other source material, oral trad. and / or Matthew. Likewise, I think he
          redacts Matthew in the light of other source material, oral trad. and / or
          Mark.

          If one holds a mechanical, over-literary view of Markan Priority whereby later
          evangelists never redact Markan material in the light of other source material,
          Thomas's dependence on Luke might be required for this saying. On the other
          hand, if one holds a less rigid, and I would say more plausible view, Thomas's
          dependence on Luke might not be required for this saying -- agreed. I think
          Steve and I are quite close on this perception of the way the evangelists
          proceeded. Where we may need to be more careful is pronouncing on the relative
          primitivity of the different elements -- on what criteria could we establish
          which version of this saying, if any, was the most primitive?

          Mark
          -------------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept. of Theology Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham Fax: +44 (0)121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT
          United Kingdom

          Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q
        • Stevan Davies
          ... We would end up more or less with the Jesus Seminar. We d say that multiple attestation points toward a future tense rather than a purely subjunctive
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 5, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            > From: "Mark Goodacre"

            > On the other
            > hand, if one holds a less rigid, and I would say more plausible view, Thomas's
            > dependence on Luke might not be required for this saying -- agreed. I think
            > Steve and I are quite close on this perception of the way the evangelists
            > proceeded. Where we may need to be more careful is pronouncing on the relative
            > primitivity of the different elements -- on what criteria could we establish
            > which version of this saying, if any, was the most primitive?

            We would end up more or less with the Jesus Seminar. We'd say that
            multiple attestation points toward a future tense rather than a purely
            subjunctive saying, and we'd support that with the observation that
            Mark's elimination of future is at the service of his redactional
            program in chapter 4 where the seed IS sown, not WILL BE, and
            the light should shine now (4:21) and not later on. I don't think
            this is a hard case.

            Moving on to Mark 4:21, we have there redundant rhetorical questions
            (which are definitive Markan redactional techniques, cf. Neyrinck)
            over against Mt 5:15, Lk 8:16, Lk 11:33 Thomas 33b

            Mark 4:21
            He said to them, "Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a
            bowl or a bed? Instead, don't you put it on its stand?

            33b) Jesus said, For no one lights a
            lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden
            place, but rather he sets it on a lampstand so that everyone who
            enters and leaves will see its light."

            Matthew 5:15
            Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl.
            Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to
            everyone in the house.

            Luke 8:16
            "No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or puts it under a bed.
            Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who
            come in can see the light.

            Luke 11:33
            "No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden,
            or under a bowl. Instead he puts it on its
            stand, so that those who come in may see the light.

            Here we have a "reversion to type" again by Lk etc. over Mk....
            Thomas containing the same type.

            This is NOT the sort of thing one can claim is Mt or Lk "redaction"
            as though when Thomas has more or less the same thing (but
            by no means exactly the same thing) it shows that Thomas is
            dependent on the synoptics.

            I'm really writing this more to Jeff than to you, Mark, because I
            think he has come to be convinced that there is some significant
            amount of Lk or Mt redaction of Mk in Thomas when, in fact, upon
            examination, that "redaction" fails as substantial evidence. 4:21,
            and 4:22 aren't really "redacted" in the significant sense of that word.
            I wonder what examples Jeff will use to support his belief that there
            is such significant "redaction" that dependence is strongly
            supported!

            [And, of course, the more "primitive" version here is, I think,
            obvious. It ain't Mark's.]

            Steve
          • Stevan Davies
            ... Then I got to thinking, what if the situation were reversed, and Thomas were closer to Mk than Mt Lk on 4:21,22. With 4:22 we d not be able to make any
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 5, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              > From: "Stevan Davies"
              > I'm really writing this more to Jeff than to you, Mark, because I
              > think he has come to be convinced that there is some significant
              > amount of Lk or Mt redaction of Mk in Thomas when, in fact, upon
              > examination, that "redaction" fails as substantial evidence. 4:21,
              > and 4:22 aren't really "redacted" in the significant sense of that word.
              > I wonder what examples Jeff will use to support his belief that there
              > is such significant "redaction" that dependence is strongly
              > supported!

              Then I got to thinking, what if the situation were reversed,
              and Thomas were closer to Mk than Mt Lk on 4:21,22.
              With 4:22 we'd not be able to make any strong case for
              authenticity of future over all-subjunctive but otherwise
              we'd be left where we are. With 4:21, though, we would have
              what we don't have, and that is we'd have a good indication that
              Thomas is indeed dependent on a synoptic gospel: Mark.

              This is kind of a nice test-case. If Thomas//Mark then
              we'd have what to all appearances is redactional Mark in
              Thomas. But if Thomas //Mt,Lk against Mark then we have
              what some say is redactional Mt,Lk in Thomas. I don't
              think this is a "can't win" scenario, but it seems to be one
              and I'd invite Jeff to think some on it.

              I once invited folks to tell us what an independent list of
              Jesus' sayings would look like, if not like Thomas. Nobody
              responded. Now I'd invite folks to tell me what evidence of
              Thomas' independence would look like, if not like Thomas.

              Steve
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.