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

8517Re: [GTh] From Thomas to Mark: Healing (Redaction and Chiasmus)

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    Dec 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi 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 an
      > 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.

      This is rather tautologous, given your assumptions, but note that this
      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).
      > 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.

      Not unless we assume that the kernel was written in Greek.

      > Thus Mark, using GTh as a primary sayings source, knew healing in
      > GTh as Grk. therapeuo.

      He would have known 'healing' as 'therapeuo' no matter what, since
      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 not
      > 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
      > equivalent.

      They're more than equivalent anyway, on linguistic grounds. Mark "chose
      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
      > 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 redaction
      > and an author making explicit what the author believs is implicit!

      I believe that there's well-known textual evidence in the NT showing
      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 an
      > alternative explanation to redaction.

      Not at all - even though I'm not sure _of what_ the two constitute
      "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.

    • Show all 4 messages in this topic