Gk GTh Hidden and Revealed
- Mark wrote:
> Now there are eight words verbatim agreement here between Luke and ThomYes indeedy. Here goes... first quoting from Mark's very useful
> (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
> I know that Steve has an answer to this, though.
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
> 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.
- At 04:01 PM 10/1/98 -0400, Stevan Davies wrote:
>So this is not evidence of Th dependence on Lk. It is in factWhat use is Markan priority, if every time Thomas happens to agree
>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.
with Luke against Mark becomes proof that Luke is more original than
his literary source?
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
- On 1 Oct 98 at 16:01, Stevan Davies wrote:
> So this is not evidence of Th dependence on Lk. It is in factThe more that one stares at this example, the more complex it gets. It is
> 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.
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
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?
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
World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q
> From: "Mark Goodacre"We would end up more or less with the Jesus Seminar. We'd say that
> 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?
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
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."
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.
"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.
"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
[And, of course, the more "primitive" version here is, I think,
obvious. It ain't Mark's.]
> From: "Stevan Davies"Then I got to thinking, what if the situation were reversed,
> 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
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.