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

Re: Gk GTh Hidden and Revealed

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.