8517Re: [GTh] From Thomas to Mark: Healing (Redaction and Chiasmus)
- Dec 1, 2008Hi Paul-
I appreciate the research you've done on the Greek term, but I'm
having a lot of trouble following your reasoning. I guess you're
assuming that Mark used Thomas, which I don't, but beyond that,
there's spots where the reasoning seems wrong, e.g.:
> Unless GTh 14.4 and 31.2 were both added to GTh after Mark used anThis is rather tautologous, given your assumptions, but note that this
> earlier Greek GTh as one of his sources, then the usages of therepeuo
> in GMk, and therepeue in Coptic GTh, derive from a single common
> ancestor text.
doesn't establish the /language/ of the "single common ancestor text",
nor does it establish that that text is the /ultimate/ source of either.
(GMk could have used a version of GTh which was not the ultimate
source of GTh, and vice versa.)
> DeConick places both 14.1 and 31.2 in the GTh kernel (30-50 CE).Not unless we assume that the kernel was written in Greek.
> Likewise Crossan places both in Stratum I (30-60 CE). So it must be
> more probable to proceed on the assumption that therapeue in both
> LL. 14 and 30 is contained in original Thomas as Grk. therapeuo.
> Thus Mark, using GTh as a primary sayings source, knew healing inHe would have known 'healing' as 'therapeuo' no matter what, since
> GTh as Grk. therapeuo.
he was presumably writing in Greek. He didn't necessarily get the
Greek word from whatever sources he used (if any), unless those
sources were written in Greek, which no argument can prove.
> The later Cop. GTh usage of therapeue as a loan word does notThey're more than equivalent anyway, on linguistic grounds. Mark "chose
> affect this. In the cases cited in my post, Mark chose to employ the
> same term - therapeuo - for healing. In this sense the terms are
to employ the ... term" simply because he was writing in Greek, not
necessarily because he saw it in some source document. That it's the
/same/ term is what can't be proven - any more than it can be proven
that if I use the word 'soul' in a rendition of a portion of some other
text, that other text must be in English - as opposed to, say, a Greek
text using 'psyche'.
> "Reversing the redactive process" can't be a valid process if what[Paul]:
> it amounts to is assuming that what the redactor added was the
> _opposite_ of what the original source intended (but didn't specify.)
> After all, the redactor might just as well have simply made explicit
> what he believed to be (and perhaps rightly so) implicit in his source.
> I would argue that there is no practical distinction between redactionI believe that there's well-known textual evidence in the NT showing
> and an author making explicit what the author believs is implicit!
this to be false, but if it were true, what it would seem to mean for
your thesis is that Mark believed that "healing" in GTh referred to
physical healing. Your notion of "reversing the redactive process"
could not, then, tell us anything about what was meant in GTh, since
Mark may or may not have been correct.
> I am guessing what we may be talking about here is tradition as anNot at all - even though I'm not sure _of what_ the two constitute
> alternative explanation to redaction.
"alternative explanation[s]". We weren't talking about redaction per se,
but about your suggestion that "reversing the redactive process" lets
us conclude in all cases that the redactor intended something quite
different from his source. You seem to have given that up above,
which is all to the good, IMO.
- << Previous post in topic