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

[gthomas] Re: Thomas 79 // Luke 11.27-28

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    ... I ll cross-post this response too, but I ve found the GThomas list startlingly and disappointingly uninterested in questions of this sort. Synoptic-L
    Message 1 of 25 , Apr 18 3:59 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark Goodacre wrote:
      > I have temporarily uploaded to the web a draft of an article on the above
      > texts. I would be grateful for any comment. The thesis is that Luke 11.27-28
      > is the source for Thom. 79a.
      > The article is at:
      >
      > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/Thom79b.htm
      >
      > I would be grateful for any feedback, especially anything that will help me to
      > sharpen it up for publication.
      >
      > Apologies for cross-posting -- this also went to GThomas list.

      I'll cross-post this response too, but I've found the GThomas list
      startlingly and disappointingly uninterested in questions of this sort.

      Synoptic-L should
      be deeply concerned with this questiont because the Gospel
      of Thomas, if it is independent, serves to provide definitive
      evidence against the Farrer hypothesis and, indeed, most if not all
      arguments in favor of Matthean priority.

      Mark's argument is that Thomas knows the Lukan form of 11:27-28
      because its form is demonstrably Lukan. "If we were looking at this
      degree of agreement among the Synotics, we would usually include
      towards literary dependence of some kind." (But of course since
      we already know there was literary dependence there, the analogy
      begs the question here).
      And, if the form is demonstrably Lukan, the dependence must
      go from Luke to Thomas. I was tempted to say that this is
      tautological, but it is not. There is always the option of saying
      that the form is not Lukan in the sense that Luke created it,
      but rather the form is Lukan in the since that it is Luke-pleasing.
      As Mark might put it, Luke takes stuff from Matthew and leaves
      out other stuff, whyso? Because the stuff he takes is the "Luke-pleasing"
      stuff. Ditto for the stuff taken from Oral Tradition and that, I
      contend, was the case here... except for one striking
      Luke-displeasing anomaly I will address later.

      Mark finds it surprising that 11:27-28 and GTh 79 have not previously
      received serious attention. I think this stems from the fact that as
      a general rule authorial redaction requires an original X and a
      revision Y so that one can point to features of Y as altered from X.
      In this case we have only Z, for Luke, making redaction-claims
      much more difficult. Features of Z will have to be shown to be
      ipso facto Lukan for a case to be made, which is what Mark tries
      to do. As follows:

      (a) regarding foil questions and comments from anonymous individuals

      1. Luke has one at 9:57 // Mt 8:19. One might well assume then, that
      there existed a question in Q. Was that question
      that of "someone said" or "a scribe" (as in Mt). One assumes from Matthean
      tendencies that the more general "someone" was original. If so,
      then this cannot be adduced as an instance giving us an insight
      into Lukan redaction. Rather, it tells us that in Q, and probably in
      oral tradition prior to Q, this kind of anonymous interlocutor was
      sometimes utilized. (Same general problem if "a scribe" was original.
      The anonymous interlocutor is still not Lukan composition.)
      No crowd appears here.

      2. At 12:13 "one of the crowd said to him"// GTh 72 where we find
      "a man said to him."

      3. 13:23 "someone said to him" again does not give us a Lukan
      tendency for the claim "a person from the crowd said" is Lukan.
      No "crowd" appears here.

      4. 14:15 "When one sitting at table with him heard this he said
      to him" again does not give us a Lukan distinctive propensity for
      "a person from the crowd said". Sitting at table with him is a
      quite different thing than "the crowd."
      No "crowd" appears here.

      X. Mark should have included Lk 9:38 "And behold, a man from the
      crowd cried out..." which is taken directly from Mk. 9:17 "And one
      of the crowd answered him..."

      Y. There may be more in Mark, I've not investigated, but Mark G.
      should for if Luke is continuing a Markan trait then what he is
      doing is not a demonstrably Lukan trait. (Cf. Mk. 12:28, 10:17 and
      elsewhere). I think Mark G. must address this in his essay.
      For the question is not whether anonymous interlocutors are
      rare in Thomas, but whether they are distinctive to Luke.

      As Mark G. points out, Thomas has its anonymous interlocutors...
      e.g. 91, 99, 100, 104.

      Mark says that "this feature" comes at least five times in Luke
      defining "this feature" as "teaching "introduced by anonymous
      individuals." It occurs (according to Mark) twice in Thomas and
      the overlap with Luke reduces the Luke occurances to three
      (if we are not to beg the question). And it appears that one of the three
      appeared also in Q, reducing the potential "Lukan distinctiveness"
      number to two. [Other instances are taken by Luke from Mark.]

      Of those two,
      13:23 "someone said to him"
      14:15 "When one sitting at table with him heard this he said to him"
      Neither of which has any mention of "the crowd."

      Where does this leave us?

      Luke has 2 anonymous interlocutors uniquely
      Shares 2 with Thomas
      Shares 1 with Matthew (Q)
      Shares others with Mark

      Thomas also has at least four "they said/asked" anonymous
      interlocutors.

      Luke has two "man/woman from the crowd" passages one
      shared with Thomas and one differing from Thomas.

      I do not think this adds up to "a woman from the crowd" being
      a demonstrably Lukan usage.

      ===================
      (b) The crowd.
      No doubt "the crowd" is a big deal in Mark and thus in Luke. I don't
      suppose it needs to be argued that "crowd" is not a distinctively
      Lukan feature. Bible Gateway counts 38 in Luke and 35 in Mark and
      40 in Matthew and even John has 14.

      Thomas has but the one instance. Mark finds himself asking "what
      crowd?" and indirectly gives the answer. The answer is that
      Thomas 79 is not "a saying" at all. It is part of a longer sequence
      that has misleadingly been separated out in the
      process of publication (by whom, does anyone know, were the
      numbers assigned?). Were Thomas to have been numbered
      in a consistent manner we would have as a single unit:

      Jesus said, "Why have you (pl.) come out into the desert? To see a
      reed shaken by the wind? And to see a man clothed in fine
      garments like your kings and your great men? Upon them are the
      fine [garments], and they are unable to discern the truth."
      A woman from the crowd said to Him, "Blessed are the womb
      which bore You and the breasts which nourished You."
      He said to her, "Blessed are those who have heard the word
      of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when
      you will say, 'Blessed are the womb which has not conceived and
      the breasts which have not given milk.'"

      Mark writes "They (the crowds) are, then, superfluous and
      irrelevant here in Thomas but coherent, important and pervasive
      here in Luke." Well no, the crowd is not superfluous and irrelevant
      in the context of the whole unit. But yes, in Thomas, the idea
      of Jesus encountering a crowd is unique to this unit. And Salome
      is unique to 61, a Samaritan is found only 60, anonymous people
      displaying things to Jesus only in 100, anonymous people asking
      about Jesus' identity only in 90/91 [also a falsely separated unit]
      and so forth. Thomas is nothing if not filled with units that are
      anomalous... leaving the concept of "anomalous" rather foreign
      to Thomas-analysis because the consistency required to identify
      the anomalous is strikingly lacking in Thomas.

      Crowds are not a Lukan trait, they are a trait of all the
      narrative gospels... Thomas has almost no narrative at all, but
      in one of the very few instances it does have one (in 78/79 at least
      by implication people have gone out into the desert and Jesus
      addresses them) a crowd is mentioned. I don't think much of
      anything follows from this as regards Thomas' necessary dependence
      on Luke for the feature.

      ======================

      (c) Gynecology [part one]

      Mark lists nine instances where Luke uses "womb" 5 having do
      do with the birth of Jesus where it is hardly to be taken to indicate
      an odd fascination with gynecology, two are from the course of Jesus'
      ministry (both paralleled in Thomas), two from Acts where "from
      the womb" is simply a locution from "from birth" (as also, I think,
      in 1:15). I cannot see that this adds up to any support for the
      thesis that when we find the word 'womb' we find indications of Lukan
      distinctiveness.

      ==============

      More to come. You will have to bear with me... it generally takes
      twice as many pages to argue against a complexly argued case
      than it does to present the case... but I'll try do it in less.

      Steve Davies
      Professor of Religious Studies
      College Misericordia
      Gospel of Thomas Homepage (links recently checked and working)
      http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
      Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 4/18/1999 6:05:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, miser17@epix.net writes:
      Message 2 of 25 , Apr 18 6:01 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 4/18/1999 6:05:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        miser17@... writes:

        <<
        Mark's argument is that Thomas knows the Lukan form of 11:27-28
        because its form is demonstrably Lukan. "If we were looking at this
        degree of agreement among the Synotics, we would usually include
        towards literary dependence of some kind." >>

        Though I doubt that Mark actually wrote the latter sentence (in the above
        form: does "include" = "incline"?), my instinct favors the view that the
        author of Thomas knew Lk 11:27-28, and the Gospel of Luke. I agree that one
        can be said to have "demonstrated" this only in a qualified sense, but none
        of the sed contra arguments by miser ille shakes my confidence in the
        fundamental validity of that insight.

        Leonard Maluf

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
        Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
      • Stevan Davies
        ... Yeah. ... This appears to be a vote that Mark has qualifiedly quasi-demonstrated that Thomas knew Luke. It would be more helpful to hear what it is that
        Message 3 of 25 , Apr 18 7:22 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          > From: Maluflen@...
          > Mark's argument is that Thomas knows the Lukan form of 11:27-28
          > because its form is demonstrably Lukan. "If we were looking at this
          > degree of agreement among the Synotics, we would usually include
          > towards literary dependence of some kind." >>
          >
          > Though I doubt that Mark actually wrote the latter sentence (in the above
          > form: does "include" = "incline"?),

          Yeah.

          >my instinct favors the view that the
          > author of Thomas knew Lk 11:27-28, and the Gospel of Luke. I agree that one
          > can be said to have "demonstrated" this only in a qualified sense, but none
          > of the sed contra arguments by miser ille shakes my confidence in the
          > fundamental validity of that insight.

          This appears to be a vote that Mark has qualifiedly
          quasi-demonstrated that Thomas knew Luke. It would be more helpful
          to hear what it is that has provided you the confidence you have.
          A particular point of Marks? Or something else?

          Steve

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
          Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
        • Mike Grondin
          ... In private communication, I ve reminded Mark that: (1) 2H , the Coptic word for belly (which some translate as womb in 79) occurs also in GTh 69
          Message 4 of 25 , Apr 18 8:23 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            In the beta version of his article, Mark G. says:

            >Thomas refers to gynaecological details only here in 79...

            In private communication, I've reminded Mark that:

            (1) '2H', the Coptic word for 'belly' (which some translate as 'womb' in
            79) occurs also in GTh 69 ("Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him
            who desires will be filled."). In both cases, the same form is used: 'N.th2H'.

            (2) #22 refers to infants "taking milk", which is an idiom for 'being
            suckled'. So the reference to 'breasts' in 79 is also not all that out of
            place in GTh.

            Mike

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
            Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 4/18/1999 9:24:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, miser17@epix.net writes: (Leonard Maluf) ... one ... none ... (Stevan)
            Message 5 of 25 , Apr 19 8:01 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 4/18/1999 9:24:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              miser17@... writes:

              (Leonard Maluf)
              >my instinct favors the view that the
              > author of Thomas knew Lk 11:27-28, and the Gospel of Luke. I agree that
              one
              > can be said to have "demonstrated" this only in a qualified sense, but
              none
              > of the sed contra arguments by miser ille shakes my confidence in the
              > fundamental validity of that insight.

              (Stevan)
              << This appears to be a vote that Mark has qualifiedly
              quasi-demonstrated that Thomas knew Luke. It would be more helpful
              to hear what it is that has provided you the confidence you have.
              A particular point of Marks? Or something else?
              >>

              Steve, (my apologies, first of all, for the naughty miser joke)
              Actually, I have not read Mark's article, but I am grateful for your
              rehearsal (in the immediately preceding post) of Mark's main arguments. I
              shall attempt here, in the short time that is available to me at the moment,
              to respond to your above challenge to me, while at the same time addressing
              some of your objections to Mark's article as I recall them.

              First of all, since you asked, may I remark that (even without bonified
              "arguments") I quite literally have more confidence in my instinct on the
              matter of Thomas' dependence on the Synoptic tradition than I do in the
              arguments of the entire Thomas camp, which I consider to be flawed at a very
              fundamental level.

              Next, I should state up front that my own approach to the particular pericope
              in question would differ somewhat from Mark's, since I believe Luke's gospel
              is best understood as a rewriting of Matthew, without any consideration of
              GMk, which I believe came into existence only at a later date. I do of course
              agree wholeheartedly with the main supporting position of Mark G., namely,
              that Lk 11:27-28 is (more or less) demonstrably Lukan, but I would go about
              that demonstration somewhat differently than does Mark.

              Let me look first at the related passage, Lk 8:19-21, and its relationship to
              Matt 12:46-50. This text represents a thorough rewriting of the Matthean
              text, as is fairly typical of ALk. The importance of its location has been
              noted by most scholars (following the parable of the seed) and its new
              location to a large extent accounts for the rewording of Jesus' statement in
              8:21, which now clearly parallels 8:15.

              Not noted by most scholars is the relationship of this Lukan text to Exod
              18:1-12. This OT text is responsible for much of the re-wording of Lk 8:19-21
              with respect to its Matthean parallel, but also to specifics of its content.
              In Exod 18:1-12, relatives of the hero (Moses) come to see him, just as the
              relatives of Jesus come to see Jesus in Matt 12:46-50. Lk sees this as a
              "parallel" OT story, therefore, and so the theme of this story will also
              influence Luke's version of the account. In the OT story, e.g., the good news
              of salvation (the great Exodus event) is proclaimed for the first time to an
              "outsider", a "non-Israelite"-and-nevertheless-relative of Moses, who hears
              and accepts this word, and "does" it (i.e., offers sacrifice to God in
              thanksgiving: Exod 18:12). Now Matt's account has had Jesus make a contrast
              between non-believing Jews who are not obedient to his Father and the group
              of Jesus' (Jewish) disciples, who are. By removing the gesture of Jesus, in
              pointing to his disciples, Lk has updated the range of the contrast made:
              Jesus' statement now applies instead to the (mainly Gentile) peoples who in
              his time (that of the Pauline mission) are "hearing God's word and doing it".
              They illustrate the seed that fell on good ground (8:15). These people,
              according to Jesus' statement, thus become Jesus' true family, as opposed to
              those "of whom is the Messiah according to the flesh" (Rom 9:5). In my
              interpretation of the passage then, Mary, and Luke's mariology, are not at
              issue at all in this passage (contra Stevan, and many others, notably R.
              Brown included). Mary is employed symbolically: she is viewed as the physical
              mother of Jesus, and as such she and the brothers and sisters of Jesus
              SYMBOLIZE the Jewish people "of whom is the Messiah according to the flesh".
              Brown et al. fail to note the significance of the anarthrous character of the
              reference to Jesus' mother and brothers in Lk 8:21. They can only be a (casus
              pendens) predicate of Jesus' statement.

              Luke has accomplished wonderful things by this rewriting of Matt, but at the
              same time there are aspects of the Matthean text that are necessarily lost by
              Luke's rewriting; and Luke is very sensitive to these and will remedy them by
              creating other "doublets" of the account. Primarily, the statement of Jesus
              in Lk 8:21 no longer contains the striking mother-father contrast that we
              find within Matt 12:46-50, where, in response to word that his (earthly)
              MOTHER and brothers seek to speak with him, Jesus responds by praising, as
              members of his true family, those who do the will of his FATHER who is in
              heaven. It is my belief that Lk 1:41-51 is relevant here, and is, among other
              things, a second parallel to Matt 12:46-50 (and 13:54-58). In this Lukan
              text, Jesus' MOTHER is SEEKING him (as in Matt 12:46-50, diff. Lk 8:19-21),
              and Jesus responds with a reference to his FATHER. Indeed, the contrast is
              even sharpened by Luke, because Jesus' (earthly) father is also present in
              the incident, to contrast more sharply with Jesus' (real) heavenly Father.

              We come now to Lk 11:27-28. Why the need for ALk to create yet another
              parallel to Matt 12:46-48? Well, for one thing, having removed the Matthean
              story from its original context in order to make the connection between 8:15
              and 8:21, ALk has now arrived at the Matthean setting for that story, and
              this in itself is reason enough to account for Luke THINKING of that Matthean
              story at this point in his narrative. It is important to see, however, that
              this is indeed another parallel to Matt 12:46-50, and especially to Luke's
              own 8:19-21, but the form, and the terms of the story are much more clearly
              Luke's own (as Mark G. seems to have attempted to demonstrate in his article).

              There are parallels in Lk 11:27-28 to Matt 12:46-48 that are NOT found in Lk
              8:19-21. In the Matthean text, e.g., Jesus is SPEAKING, and Jesus' mother and
              brothers seek to SPEAK with him. So you have the idea of Jesus' family trying
              to talk Jesus down, as it were, instead of "listening" to him when he is
              speaking. ALk has introduced a slightly different contrast in Lk 8:19-21,
              namely, that of a family who WISH to SEE Jesus (cf. Matt 12:38, where some
              scribes and Pharisees WISH to SEE a sign from heaven: and recall that the
              family of Jesus in Luke's story symbolizes the Jewish people, who "seek
              signs" [1 Cor 1:22]), which will contrast later in Lk's account by the
              statement of Jesus regarding those who HEAR God's word and do it. So, the
              idea of Jesus being shouted down while he is trying to speak is absent from
              Lk 8:19-21 (replaced by the contrast SEE vs. HEAR), but, lo and behold, it
              shows up here in Lk 11:27-29, where a woman from the crowd raises her VOICE
              (cf. Prov 8:1 Heb) while Jesus is SPEAKING to the crowd.

              There is also an analogous aspect in this story, with respect to that of
              8:19-21, in the sense that Jesus' final statement takes up the terms of the
              word spoken to Jesus: in 8:19-21, Jesus speaks of "my mother and my
              brothers", because he has been told: "your mother and brothers are standing
              outside...". Here, in Lk 11:27-28, the woman has uttered a macarism, and so
              Jesus responds with a counter-macarism. But apart from these
              differences-within-analogy, the contents and message of the pericope, and in
              particular of the statement of Jesus, are identical, I think, to that of Lk
              8:19-21. Including the symbolic character of the reference to Jesus' mother
              as symbolizing the people "of whom is the Messiah according to the flesh", in
              contrast to those who are now (largely Gentiles) hearing God's word and
              doing/guarding it. This, by the way, is the key to the connection of this
              pericope to the surrounding, especially the immediately following, material
              in Lk 11 (contra Stevan), where Jesus speaks of Johah and Ninevites and the
              queen of the south, contrasting the openness of pagans to the message of
              salvation, to the closedness and hostility of "this generation" which seeks a
              sign (Lk 11:29).

              The necessity for Lk 11:27-28, even after Luke has already given two versions
              of Matt 12:46-50, can also be justified by one problematic detail of the
              Matthean account left undeveloped by Lk in his earlier "versions" of the
              story. In Matt 12:50, it is fairly clear how, in a metaphorical sense, those
              can become brothers and sisters of Jesus who do the will of his Father in
              heaven: they enter Jesus' family as his siblings by participating in his
              sonship of obedience to the heavenly Father. But Jesus also says that such
              persons will be his "mother", the meaning of which is not at all clear in
              itself, and is not dealt with by Luke's two other parallels to this Matthean
              pericope. It seems to me that this pericope (Lk 11:27-28) is focusing very
              much on the theme and question of "in what sense can one become the MOTHER of
              Jesus in the new order"? Luke speaks of carrying in the womb and breasts that
              give milk. Is he thinking, in metaphorical terms, of the nourishment that
              comes from hearing the Word of God and the carrying of that word as a way of
              guarding it in one's heart, where mother-imagery is applied in different ways
              to those who are preaching, and those who hearing and living by the Word, in
              the Gentile mission? In any case, it is not only typical of Luke to speak
              about wombs and breasts, but it is a general trait of Luke's to focus very
              strongly on body parts and their significance. This is why, instinctively
              (sorry, Stevan, if this doesn't appeal to you as an argument), I am inclined
              to see Lk 11:27-29 as a thoroughly Lukan text, based, as to its substance, on
              Matt 12:46-50 and Luke's own parallel to this account, but exhibiting
              typically Lukan bio-contemplative interests as to its form.

              Leonard Maluf

              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
              Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
            • Stevan Davies
              (Leonard Maluf) ... If Luke is a rewriting of Matthew with or without any consideration of GMk then Thomas is dependent on Luke. That is because Thomas shares
              Message 6 of 25 , Apr 19 1:45 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                (Leonard Maluf)

                > I should state up front that my own approach to the particular pericope
                > in question would differ somewhat from Mark's, since I believe Luke's gospel
                > is best understood as a rewriting of Matthew, without any consideration of
                > GMk, which I believe came into existence only at a later date.

                If Luke is a rewriting of Matthew with or without any consideration
                of GMk then Thomas is dependent on Luke. That is because Thomas
                shares too many Luke sayings variants against Matthew and
                one will assume that those variants are Lukan redaction of Matthew.
                The only alternative would be that Luke is dependent on another
                source than Matthew for a lot of sayings that are found in Matthew.
                Stephen Carlson seems to think that this position is in fact held
                by some Griesbachians and, if so, then Thomas' independence
                could still be asserted for the Thomas sayings in Lk against Mt
                will be from that other source. I don't see this becoming a widely
                supported position.

                > There is also an analogous aspect in this story, with respect to that of
                > 8:19-21, in the sense that Jesus' final statement takes up the terms of the
                > word spoken to Jesus: in 8:19-21, Jesus speaks of "my mother and my
                > brothers", because he has been told: "your mother and brothers are standing
                > outside...". Here, in Lk 11:27-28, the woman has uttered a macarism, and so
                > Jesus responds with a counter-macarism. But apart from these
                > differences-within-analogy, the contents and message of the pericope, and in
                > particular of the statement of Jesus, are identical, I think, to that of Lk
                > 8:19-21.

                Your complex analysis of all this goes over my head, but perhaps
                that's because I don't share your initial Griesbachianism.

                I'd just observe that Lk has changed the original story, whether Mk,
                Mt, GTh, to one that does not exclude his biological family from his
                metaphorical family and this is just what one would expect from the
                author of Luke 1-2 and Acts 1. That's why Mark's argument has a
                fatal flaw, for the "Blessed, rather..." of 11:27-28 is contra-Lukan.

                It might be argued that Thomas 79 is contra-Thomasine, as Mark
                does, but then there we are. Both authors may have included the
                same saying that, in some of its elements, goes against tendencies
                in the whole of the texts they are contained in.

                How can this be? Well, if you are constructing a Jesus to do the
                teachings you want him to do, and using Jesus material wherein
                Jesus is teaching whatever he wants to teach, there's always a
                chance that Jesus' own views will slip in, eager as you might be
                to keep them out.

                Steve

                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
                Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
              • Stevan Davies
                ... How nice. Steve ... eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                Message 7 of 25 , Apr 19 1:47 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  > From: Mike Grondin

                  > In private communication, I've reminded Mark that:
                  >
                  > (1) '2H', the Coptic word for 'belly' (which some translate as 'womb' in
                  > 79) occurs also in GTh 69 ("Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him
                  > who desires will be filled."). In both cases, the same form is used: 'N.th2H'.
                  >
                  > (2) #22 refers to infants "taking milk", which is an idiom for 'being
                  > suckled'. So the reference to 'breasts' in 79 is also not all that out of
                  > place in GTh.

                  How nice.

                  Steve

                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
                  Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 4/19/1999 3:48:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, miser17@epix.net writes: (Stevan)
                  Message 8 of 25 , Apr 19 5:53 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 4/19/1999 3:48:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    miser17@... writes:

                    (Stevan)
                    << If Luke is a rewriting of Matthew with or without any consideration
                    of GMk then Thomas is dependent on Luke. That is because Thomas
                    shares too many Luke sayings variants against Matthew and
                    one will assume that those variants are Lukan redaction of Matthew.
                    The only alternative would be that Luke is dependent on another
                    source than Matthew for a lot of sayings that are found in Matthew.
                    Stephen Carlson seems to think that this position is in fact held
                    by some Griesbachians and, if so, then Thomas' independence
                    could still be asserted for the Thomas sayings in Lk against Mt
                    will be from that other source. I don't see this becoming a widely
                    supported position.>>

                    I think I agree with this, if I have understood you properly. What I mean is,
                    I don't think there is much future for a Griesbach theory that continuously
                    posits Luke copying from other written sources, when he seems to depart from
                    Matthew. A more viable 2 GH theory takes more seriously Luke's tendency to
                    work creatively with material we know from Matthew (and the OT, of course).
                    At least, this is my own view (and for this reason, I hope it has more of a
                    future than the other).

                    (Leonard Maluf)
                    > There is also an analogous aspect in this story, with respect to that of
                    > 8:19-21, in the sense that Jesus' final statement takes up the terms of
                    the
                    > word spoken to Jesus: in 8:19-21, Jesus speaks of "my mother and my
                    > brothers", because he has been told: "your mother and brothers are
                    standing
                    > outside...". Here, in Lk 11:27-28, the woman has uttered a macarism, and
                    so
                    > Jesus responds with a counter-macarism. But apart from these
                    > differences-within-analogy, the contents and message of the pericope, and
                    in
                    > particular of the statement of Jesus, are identical, I think, to that of
                    Lk
                    > 8:19-21.

                    << Your complex analysis of all this goes over my head, but perhaps
                    that's because I don't share your initial Griesbachianism.>>

                    No, this doesn't really involve my Griesbachianism. I suggest that you reread
                    the above shortly after taking your first cup of coffee in the morning. You
                    won't even find it so complex then! (I am here suggesting a remedy that works
                    for me, and hope that I have not been guilty of illegitimate induction: "ab
                    uno disce omnes".)

                    << I'd just observe that Lk has changed the original story, whether Mk,
                    Mt, GTh, to one that does not exclude his biological family from his
                    metaphorical family and this is just what one would expect from the
                    author of Luke 1-2 and Acts 1.>>

                    This is well worded, and I think I would agree with this, as far as it goes.
                    But, as you probably know, R. Brown says more than this. He is convinced that
                    Jesus' statement in 8:21, which he renders (in substance): "My mother and
                    brothers are they who hear God's word and do it", not only does not exclude
                    Jesus' family, but actually identifies them as those who hear God's Word and
                    do it. It is this position that I believe is untenable, because of an
                    inaccurate translation which ignores the anarthrous meter mou kai adelphoi
                    mou, ktl. This makes Luke's text say the opposite from what is said in Matt
                    (or Mark), and I do not believe Luke's text DOES have that kind of a
                    relationship to either Matt or Mark. On the contrary, much the SAME point is
                    made by Jesus in Lk as in Matt or Mk, only (and significantly) without
                    excluding Mary and the brothers from Jesus' new family.

                    << That's why Mark's argument has a
                    fatal flaw, for the "Blessed, rather..." of 11:27-28 is contra-Lukan.>>

                    Stevan, you seem to imply here that Lk 11:27-28 makes a substantively
                    different point from that made in Lk 8:21. I simply do not see this. In
                    substance, the texts are identical in their meaning. Mary is also not
                    excluded (and synchronic observations based on Lk 1-2 would suggest that she
                    is very much included) among those who merit the higher macarism uttered by
                    Jesus in 11:28. The opposition here is between her physical motherhood, and
                    that of Israel whom she embodies (11:27b), and a motherhood of a higher plane
                    which is not limited to, but includes, her as its prime exemplar (11:28).
                    Thus the "rather" (and by the way you should research the exact meaning of
                    the unusual Greek word menoun in this phrase) does not introduce a contrast
                    to, or exclusion of Mary in what follows, but rather a contrast to a certain
                    view of Mary, in her physical fruitfulness and what that represents.

                    I don't claim that either this, or my preceding post, PROVES that the author
                    of Thomas got this material from Luke. I do however think it very likely that
                    Luke is responsible for the form and contents of Lk 11:27-28, and quite
                    probable that Thomas 79 is directly or indirectly dependent on this passage.

                    Leonard Maluf

                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gthomas
                    Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    ... Since my views in another forum are being characterized here, allow me to clarify what my position is. I had asserted that the Griesbach Hypothesis is the
                    Message 9 of 25 , Apr 19 7:06 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 08:53 PM 4/19/99 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                      >In a message dated 4/19/1999 3:48:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      >miser17@... writes:
                      >(Stevan)
                      ><< If Luke is a rewriting of Matthew with or without any consideration
                      > of GMk then Thomas is dependent on Luke. That is because Thomas
                      > shares too many Luke sayings variants against Matthew and
                      > one will assume that those variants are Lukan redaction of Matthew.
                      > The only alternative would be that Luke is dependent on another
                      > source than Matthew for a lot of sayings that are found in Matthew.
                      > Stephen Carlson seems to think that this position is in fact held
                      > by some Griesbachians and, if so, then Thomas' independence
                      > could still be asserted for the Thomas sayings in Lk against Mt
                      > will be from that other source. I don't see this becoming a widely
                      > supported position.>>
                      >
                      >I think I agree with this, if I have understood you properly. What I mean is,
                      >I don't think there is much future for a Griesbach theory that continuously
                      >posits Luke copying from other written sources, when he seems to depart from
                      >Matthew. A more viable 2 GH theory takes more seriously Luke's tendency to
                      >work creatively with material we know from Matthew (and the OT, of course).
                      >At least, this is my own view (and for this reason, I hope it has more of a
                      >future than the other).

                      Since my views in another forum are being characterized here, allow
                      me to clarify what my position is. I had asserted that the Griesbach
                      Hypothesis is the most compatible of the synoptic source theories for
                      Thomasine independence. Under the GH, Luke is clearly not dependent
                      on Matthew for much of the so-called L material and the Mark-Luke
                      material not in Matthew. This brings up the question of where Luke
                      got this other material. Some noted Griesbach adherents (McNicol et
                      al.) believe that Luke used a non-Matthean tradition.

                      In contrast with hypotheses that posit Mark's priority to Luke, I feel
                      that the GH gives Luke more latitude in creatively working with material
                      from Matthew, the OT, and, yes, oral tradition. To the extent that
                      this oral tradition happens to be similar to Thomas, then I would say
                      that the GH is compatible with Thomasine independence. On the other
                      hand, with Mark's priority to Luke, Luke's faithful to his source and
                      his avoidance of conflation is easier to establish, thereby favoring
                      Thomas's dependence on Luke as the better explanation for Thomas'
                      Lukanness.

                      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

                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
                      Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      In a message dated 4/19/1999 10:53:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes:
                      Message 10 of 25 , Apr 20 9:47 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 4/19/1999 10:53:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                        scarlson@... writes:

                        <<
                        Since my views in another forum are being characterized here, allow
                        me to clarify what my position is. I had asserted that the Griesbach
                        Hypothesis is the most compatible of the synoptic source theories for
                        Thomasine independence. Under the GH, Luke is clearly not dependent
                        on Matthew for much of the so-called L material and the Mark-Luke
                        material not in Matthew. This brings up the question of where Luke
                        got this other material. Some noted Griesbach adherents (McNicol et
                        al.) believe that Luke used a non-Matthean tradition.

                        In contrast with hypotheses that posit Mark's priority to Luke, I feel
                        that the GH gives Luke more latitude in creatively working with material
                        from Matthew, the OT, and, yes, oral tradition. To the extent that
                        this oral tradition happens to be similar to Thomas, then I would say
                        that the GH is compatible with Thomasine independence. On the other
                        hand, with Mark's priority to Luke, Luke's faithful to his source and
                        his avoidance of conflation is easier to establish, thereby favoring
                        Thomas's dependence on Luke as the better explanation for Thomas'
                        Lukanness.>>

                        I'm missing something here. Is there an unstated premise somewhere? Or could
                        you perhaps reword or clarify one more time? Thanks, Steve.

                        Leonard Maluf

                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gthomas
                        Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                      • Stevan Davies
                        ... Thomas Lukanness means that Thomas is often (but by no means always) closer to Lk than to Mt in the sayings material shared with Mt. Luke s Thomasness
                        Message 11 of 25 , Apr 20 2:44 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Leonard wrote:
                          > In contrast with hypotheses that posit Mark's priority to Luke, I feel
                          > that the GH gives Luke more latitude in creatively working with material
                          > from Matthew, the OT, and, yes, oral tradition. To the extent that
                          > this oral tradition happens to be similar to Thomas, then I would say
                          > that the GH is compatible with Thomasine independence. On the other
                          > hand, with Mark's priority to Luke, Luke's faithful to his source and
                          > his avoidance of conflation is easier to establish, thereby favoring
                          > Thomas's dependence on Luke as the better explanation for Thomas'
                          > Lukanness.>>
                          >
                          > I'm missing something here. Is there an unstated premise somewhere? Or could
                          > you perhaps reword or clarify one more time?

                          Thomas' Lukanness means that Thomas is often (but by no means
                          always) closer to Lk than to Mt in the sayings material shared with Mt.

                          Luke's Thomasness means that Luke is often (but by no means
                          always) closer to Th than to Mt in the sayings material shared with
                          Mt. (We must not let phraseology beg the question for us).

                          Assuming the Q hypothesis, this simply supports the view of most
                          Q scholars that Lk's Q material is somewhat less redacted than
                          Mt's. Indeed, many Q scholars will agree that the independent Thomas
                          enables us to make judgements as to whether Mt or Lk changed Q.

                          It is evidently possible to maintain that Lk used Mt and,
                          nevertheless, had at least one other source duplicating much of
                          the Mt sayings material, a source which Lk often preferred to the
                          Mt. source. If so, then the Thomasness of Luke (= Lukaness of Thomas)
                          accords with Luke's use of a sayings list akin to Thomas (and akin
                          to Q) thus allowing for an independent Thomas.

                          Steve

                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
                          Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                        • Maluflen@aol.com
                          In a message dated 99-04-21 16:06:38 EDT, miser17@epix.net writes:
                          Message 12 of 25 , Apr 22 8:22 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 99-04-21 16:06:38 EDT, miser17@... writes:

                            <<
                            Thomas' Lukanness means that Thomas is often (but by no means
                            always) closer to Lk than to Mt in the sayings material shared with Mt.

                            Luke's Thomasness means that Luke is often (but by no means
                            always) closer to Th than to Mt in the sayings material shared with
                            Mt. (We must not let phraseology beg the question for us).

                            Assuming the Q hypothesis, this simply supports the view of most
                            Q scholars that Lk's Q material is somewhat less redacted than
                            Mt's. Indeed, many Q scholars will agree that the independent Thomas
                            enables us to make judgements as to whether Mt or Lk changed Q.

                            It is evidently possible to maintain that Lk used Mt and,
                            nevertheless, had at least one other source duplicating much of
                            the Mt sayings material, a source which Lk often preferred to the
                            Mt. source. If so, then the Thomasness of Luke (= Lukaness of Thomas)
                            accords with Luke's use of a sayings list akin to Thomas (and akin
                            to Q) thus allowing for an independent Thomas.
                            >>

                            I believe I understand the above, but it does not seem to address the
                            particular puzzlement I had in mind, namely, the reasoning behind the
                            assertion of Steve Carlson that the 2 GH is more (or was it less?) compatible
                            with GThomas independence. Excuse my mental retardation.

                            Leonard Maluf

                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gthomas
                            Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                          • Stephen C. Carlson
                            ... Given my original statement and Stevan s clarification, it is difficult for me to address your puzzlement without understanding why you re puzzled. It
                            Message 13 of 25 , Apr 22 7:43 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 11:22 AM 4/22/99 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                              >I believe I understand the above, but it does not seem to address the
                              >particular puzzlement I had in mind, namely, the reasoning behind the
                              >assertion of Steve Carlson that the 2 GH is more (or was it less?) compatible
                              >with GThomas independence. Excuse my mental retardation.

                              Given my original statement and Stevan's clarification, it is difficult
                              for me to address your puzzlement without understanding why you're
                              puzzled. It could be the terminology (e.g. "compatible"), the factual
                              predicates, the reasoning, or the conclusion. If you'd like me to
                              explain, I'm going to need to have some idea what you're puzzled about.
                              I simply have no idea.

                              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

                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gthomas
                              http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                            • Maluflen@aol.com
                              In a message dated 4/22/1999 10:45:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes:
                              Message 14 of 25 , Apr 23 3:34 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 4/22/1999 10:45:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                scarlson@... writes:

                                <<
                                Given my original statement and Stevan's clarification, it is difficult
                                for me to address your puzzlement without understanding why you're
                                puzzled. It could be the terminology (e.g. "compatible"), the factual
                                predicates, the reasoning, or the conclusion. If you'd like me to
                                explain, I'm going to need to have some idea what you're puzzled about.
                                I simply have no idea.
                                >>
                                Steve, Stevan's "clarification" didn't seem to me to mention the GH at all,
                                that is why
                                it didn't seem to me to address the question as to the impact of the 2 GH on
                                the question of GThomas independence. However, don't worry. I haven't lost
                                any sleep over the issue, believe me. As I said a while ago, I go more on
                                instinct in this matter than on my ability to follow the subtleties of
                                logical argumentation. Thanks for your efforts. I am, in any case, living
                                proof that adherence to the GH does not necessarily lead to belief in GThomas
                                independence.

                                Leonard Maluf

                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gthomas
                                Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                              • Stephen C. Carlson
                                ... This may explain your puzzlement. I was suggesting that supporters of Thomasine independence may be more comfortable with the GH than with the other
                                Message 15 of 25 , Apr 23 7:22 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 06:34 AM 4/23/99 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                                  >Thanks for your efforts. I am, in any case, living
                                  >proof that adherence to the GH does not necessarily lead to belief in GThomas
                                  >independence.

                                  This may explain your puzzlement. I was suggesting that supporters
                                  of Thomasine independence may be more comfortable with the GH than
                                  with the other hypotheses, not the the other way around. However,
                                  commitment to the 2SH seems stronger than commitment to Thomas'
                                  independence.

                                  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

                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gthomas
                                  http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                • Mark Goodacre
                                  Many thanks to Steve for his constructive and sharp comments on the draft of the article, which will be a better one for that critique. I will combine both
                                  Message 16 of 25 , May 5, 1999
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Many thanks to Steve for his constructive and sharp comments on the draft of
                                    the article, which will be a better one for that critique. I will combine both
                                    parts of Steve's carefully articulated response and it will be necessary to
                                    reproduce much of it wholesale, with apologies for the rather lengthy message.
                                    This message is cross-posted to Synoptic-L and GThomas with apologies for the
                                    lengthy delay between Steve's message and this, inevitable with the kind of
                                    time constraints I am currently working under.

                                    On 18 Apr 99 at 17:59, Stevan Davies wrote:

                                    > Mark's argument is that Thomas knows the Lukan form of 11:27-28
                                    > because its form is demonstrably Lukan. "If we were looking at this
                                    > degree of agreement among the Synotics, we would usually incline
                                    > towards literary dependence of some kind." (But of course since
                                    > we already know there was literary dependence there, the analogy
                                    > begs the question here).

                                    The point in brackets is a good one, though of course we would not think that
                                    there was literary dependence there if it were not for the fact that we have
                                    close agreement of precisely this kind between the Synoptics.

                                    > And, if the form is demonstrably Lukan, the dependence must
                                    > go from Luke to Thomas. I was tempted to say that this is
                                    > tautological, but it is not. There is always the option of saying
                                    > that the form is not Lukan in the sense that Luke created it,
                                    > but rather the form is Lukan in the since that it is Luke-pleasing.
                                    > As Mark might put it, Luke takes stuff from Matthew and leaves
                                    > out other stuff, whyso? Because the stuff he takes is the "Luke-pleasing"
                                    > stuff. Ditto for the stuff taken from Oral Tradition and that, I contend, was
                                    > the case here... except for one striking Luke-displeasing anomaly I will
                                    > address later.

                                    Again, this is a good point and it is relevant to what I was saying on
                                    Synoptic-L recently about excessive dependence on redaction-criticism.
                                    Sometimes Luke will indeed have found something in his source materials that he
                                    will have thought to be just right and thoroughly Lukan. We all do this all
                                    the time. "I couldn't have said it better myself" is a cliche we often use to express the
                                    fact that sometimes another will express our own thoughts more coherently than
                                    we are able. Nevertheless, we still have to say when we see two clear
                                    parallels that show signs of literary dependence: which way is the dependence
                                    most likely to go? Where a text is pervasively Lukan and far less clearly
                                    Thomasine, our natural presumption will of course be to say that Luke is likely
                                    to be dependent on Thomas.
                                    >
                                    > Mark finds it surprising that 11:27-28 and GTh 79 have not previously
                                    > received serious attention. I think this stems from the fact that as
                                    > a general rule authorial redaction requires an original X and a
                                    > revision Y so that one can point to features of Y as altered from X.
                                    > In this case we have only Z, for Luke, making redaction-claims
                                    > much more difficult. Features of Z will have to be shown to be
                                    > ipso facto Lukan for a case to be made, which is what Mark tries
                                    > to do.

                                    One of the things that helps us in our task of working out what is clearly
                                    "Lukan" is the comparison with the other Synoptics, especially Mark. If we
                                    see Luke redacting Mark in certain ways and then see the same features in L,
                                    our natural presumption will be that the L feature in question is likely to be
                                    from Luke's hand. In other words, an accumulation of repeated, pervasively
                                    Lucan features are likely -- in a given instance -- to be due to Luke's hand.

                                    I will continue to try to keep Steve's post in tact in what follows,
                                    interjecting my comments along the way.
                                    >
                                    > (a) regarding foil questions and comments from anonymous individuals

                                    A key point that Steve does not consider is the presence of TIS (a certain one,
                                    someone). This specific feature is strikingly Lukan: the five instances listed
                                    are the only occasions in the synoptic tradition to feature a foil question
                                    from an anonymous individual described as TIS. This is a sign of Luke's hand.
                                    >
                                    > 1. Luke has one at 9:57 // Mt 8:19. One might well assume then, that
                                    > there existed a question in Q. Was that question
                                    > that of "someone said" or "a scribe" (as in Mt). One assumes from Matthean
                                    > tendencies that the more general "someone" was original. If so, then this
                                    > cannot be adduced as an instance giving us an insight into Lukan redaction.
                                    > Rather, it tells us that in Q, and probably in oral tradition prior to Q, this
                                    > kind of anonymous interlocutor was sometimes utilized. (Same general problem
                                    > if "a scribe" was original. The anonymous interlocutor is still not Lukan
                                    > composition.) No crowd appears here.

                                    Actually the IQP reconstruct with TIS at Q 9.57, probably for the kind of
                                    reason you mention, a good example of how easy it is to miss distinctively
                                    Lukan terminology when it is "general", like TIS, in order to pick up on the
                                    more obviously Matthean "scribe". This is what Goulder calls embarras de
                                    richesses in the reconstruction of Q -- equally Lukan / equally Matthean
                                    features turning up in their respective reworkings of Q.
                                    >
                                    > 2. At 12:13 "one of the crowd said to him"// GTh 72 where we find
                                    > "a man said to him."

                                    This is the other example of an anonymous interlocutor in Thomas and, as in
                                    the saying in question, it is parallel with Luke. There is one small extra
                                    hint that Thomas might be following Luke in Thom. 72 // Luke 12.13-15. Jesus
                                    replies to the man ANQRWPE (Luke 12.14), a form of address found on three
                                    other occasions in Luke and never elsewhere in the Gospels: 5.20, 22.58 and
                                    22.60 (all redactional additions to Mark). Thomas has W PRWME in parallel,
                                    found elsewhere only at Thom. 61.
                                    >
                                    > 3. 13:23 "someone said to him" again does not give us a Lukan
                                    > tendency for the claim "a person from the crowd said" is Lukan.
                                    > No "crowd" appears here.

                                    This shifts the goalposts. 13.23 is an anonymous interlocutor, introduced by
                                    TIS, asking a foil question, as in the passage under discussion. The fact
                                    that there is no "crowd" here is not relevant to the case for the Lukan
                                    character of anonymous interlocutors, introduced by TIS, asking foil questions
                                    / making foil comments.
                                    >
                                    > 4. 14:15 "When one sitting at table with him heard this he said
                                    > to him" again does not give us a Lukan distinctive propensity for
                                    > "a person from the crowd said". Sitting at table with him is a
                                    > quite different thing than "the crowd."
                                    > No "crowd" appears here.

                                    The same comments made above are relevant here.
                                    >
                                    > X. Mark should have included Lk 9:38 "And behold, a man from the
                                    > crowd cried out..." which is taken directly from Mk. 9:17 "And one
                                    > of the crowd answered him..."

                                    There is of course a little similarity here, but the crucial factors are
                                    missing: (1) TIS; (2) this is not a foil question / comment introducing
                                    teaching.
                                    >
                                    > Y. There may be more in Mark, I've not investigated, but Mark G.
                                    > should for if Luke is continuing a Markan trait then what he is
                                    > doing is not a demonstrably Lukan trait. (Cf. Mk. 12:28, 10:17 and
                                    > elsewhere). I think Mark G. must address this in his essay.
                                    > For the question is not whether anonymous interlocutors are
                                    > rare in Thomas, but whether they are distinctive to Luke.

                                    I have looked at this carefully and I believe that I am right in saying that
                                    foil questions or comments from individual interlocutors framed with TIS are
                                    unique to Luke in the Synoptic tradition.
                                    >
                                    > As Mark G. points out, Thomas has its anonymous interlocutors...
                                    > e.g. 91, 99, 100, 104.

                                    Plural.
                                    >
                                    > Mark says that "this feature" comes at least five times in Luke
                                    > defining "this feature" as "teaching "introduced by anonymous
                                    > individuals." It occurs (according to Mark) twice in Thomas and
                                    > the overlap with Luke reduces the Luke occurances to three
                                    > (if we are not to beg the question). And it appears that one of the three
                                    > appeared also in Q, reducing the potential "Lukan distinctiveness" number to
                                    > two. [Other instances are taken by Luke from Mark.]

                                    This attempt to reduce the impact that the evidence makes is not persuasive
                                    partly for reasons given above in relation to individual verses. But further,
                                    evidence of a 0/0/5 (occurrences in Matthew / Mark / Luke) feature should not
                                    be so lightly dismissed. Note here that there is some troubling movement away
                                    from the one thing that everyone agrees we need in order to demonstrate
                                    Thomasine knowledge of Luke: that Thomas should share with Luke some of the
                                    latter's distinctive, redactional features. It won't do to say that Luke's
                                    distinctive features are not distinctive because they are shared in a given
                                    instance with Thomas. That is the very thing that is under discussion. If
                                    every feature is held to be less distinctive because of a given parallel under
                                    discussion in Thomas, then one is placed in a no-win situation in which one
                                    begins to suspect that no evidence, however persuasive, will be allowed to
                                    count in favour of Thomasine knowledge of Luke.
                                    >
                                    > Of those two,
                                    > 13:23 "someone said to him"
                                    > 14:15 "When one sitting at table with him heard this he said to him"
                                    > Neither of which has any mention of "the crowd."

                                    Once more, the introduction of the crowd here is not relevant since it is not
                                    an element in the argument here.
                                    >
                                    > Where does this leave us?
                                    >
                                    > Luke has 2 anonymous interlocutors uniquely
                                    > Shares 2 with Thomas
                                    > Shares 1 with Matthew (Q)
                                    > Shares others with Mark

                                    On the sharing with Thomas, see above. He does not share any with Mark; again
                                    see above. For Q theorists, he may or may not have taken over one from Q
                                    9.57; but the pervasively Lukan nature of the feature will incline us not to
                                    make that judgement. For Q sceptics, Luke 9.57 is his characteristic
                                    redactional change to Matthew. What one therefore needs to note here is the
                                    absence of a single clear counter-example. In other words, as has been made
                                    clear already, this feature is a peculiarly Lukan one within the Synoptic
                                    tradition and only occurs in Thomas on two occasions, closely parallel to
                                    Luke.
                                    >
                                    > Thomas also has at least four "they said/asked" anonymous
                                    > interlocutors.

                                    Again, not relevant because these are not the thing that is strikingly Lukan.
                                    >
                                    > Luke has two "man/woman from the crowd" passages one
                                    > shared with Thomas and one differing from Thomas.
                                    >
                                    > I do not think this adds up to "a woman from the crowd" being
                                    > a demonstrably Lukan usage.

                                    For the reasons stated above, I am not convinced that this reduces the impact
                                    of the evidence. The case is, of course, also a cumulative one. This feature
                                    on its own is not enough to make the case but alongside the other features it
                                    plays a key part in establishing Thomasine knowledge of Luke.
                                    >
                                    > ===================
                                    > (b) The crowd.
                                    > No doubt "the crowd" is a big deal in Mark and thus in Luke. I don't
                                    > suppose it needs to be argued that "crowd" is not a distinctively
                                    > Lukan feature. Bible Gateway counts 38 in Luke and 35 in Mark and
                                    > 40 in Matthew and even John has 14.

                                    Agreed -- the crowd is not distinctive of Luke (and of course I do not claim
                                    that it is in the article). The mention of the crowd is more striking because
                                    of its anomalous nature in Thomas.

                                    <snip>

                                    > Mark writes "They (the crowds) are, then, superfluous and
                                    > irrelevant here in Thomas but coherent, important and pervasive
                                    > here in Luke." Well no, the crowd is not superfluous and irrelevant
                                    > in the context of the whole unit. But yes, in Thomas, the idea
                                    > of Jesus encountering a crowd is unique to this unit. And Salome
                                    > is unique to 61, a Samaritan is found only 60, anonymous people
                                    > displaying things to Jesus only in 100, anonymous people asking
                                    > about Jesus' identity only in 90/91 [also a falsely separated unit]
                                    > and so forth. Thomas is nothing if not filled with units that are
                                    > anomalous... leaving the concept of "anomalous" rather foreign
                                    > to Thomas-analysis because the consistency required to identify
                                    > the anomalous is strikingly lacking in Thomas.

                                    It is indeed difficult to pin down genuinely anomalous features in Thomas, a
                                    fact that makes the kind of argument I am attempting all the more difficult. I
                                    think it a good point that we have in Thomas 78 "you" (plural) but we can
                                    hardly conclude from that that a "crowd" is implied. The fact remains that the
                                    inadvertent mention of a "crowd" in Thomas that is elsewhere entirely absent is
                                    precisely the kind of thing that might indicate dependence on Luke.

                                    I am not sure that the matter of "narrative" here in Thomas solves the problem.
                                    Even if it is the case that we have what one might call some kind of narrative
                                    progression (from saying 78 to 79), it is not clear to me that mention of a
                                    "crowd" becomes inevitable. For where crowds are a key element in the whole
                                    Synoptic portrait, they can hardly be a natural feature in a text that stresses
                                    the communication of secret sayings.

                                    <snip>

                                    > (c) Gynaecology [part one]
                                    >
                                    > Mark lists nine instances where Luke uses "womb" 5 having do
                                    > do with the birth of Jesus where it is hardly to be taken to indicate
                                    > an odd fascination with gynecology, two are from the course of Jesus'
                                    > ministry (both paralleled in Thomas), two from Acts where "from
                                    > the womb" is simply a locution from "from birth" (as also, I think,
                                    > in 1:15). I cannot see that this adds up to any support for the
                                    > thesis that when we find the word 'womb' we find indications of Lukan
                                    > distinctiveness.

                                    Well we have to ask whether we have anything with which we can compare Luke.
                                    And indeed we have something -- Matthew's Birth Narrative in which he manages
                                    to tell a story about the birth of Jesus without any mention of wombs or
                                    breasts.

                                    The phrase "from birth" provides a useful analogy. The question when one is
                                    looking at a writer's use of language is often focused on the words s/he
                                    chooses to express a concept that others would express in a different way.
                                    Where Steve might say "from birth", Luke might say "from the womb", the latter
                                    witnessing to a tendency to use gynaecological terminology.

                                    > Mark wrote;
                                    >
                                    > "And mastoi/ (breasts) occurs only in Luke
                                    > among the (canonical) Gospels, here and at 23.29."
                                    >
                                    > Both of which appear in Thomas 79. It appears strikingly illogical
                                    > to say X appears in text Y and Z and so X is a trait of Y and thus
                                    > Z is dependent on Y. But if that's not the implication here, then
                                    > the sentence is without significance for the argument. It can
                                    > be said with equal validity that since "breasts" appear only
                                    > in Thomas 79 in the synoptic tradition, Luke therefore depends
                                    > on Thomas.

                                    Here we have the atomisation of the argument. Of course the reference to
                                    breasts on their own are not a clear indicator, but alongside other signs of
                                    interest in gynaecological detail, they are worthy of note.

                                    On my comments on the co-text in 1.41-44, Steve writes (some omitted):

                                    > Mark assumes, along
                                    > with virtually all scholars, that Luke crafted this macarism and
                                    > did so at the beginning of the process of writing the gospel.
                                    > It must be observed that Luke attributes "Blessed are you among
                                    > women," to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... it is not just
                                    > Elizabeth's own flattering comment. Luke's high Mariology (vs.
                                    > the other NT texts) is carried through in his deletion of Mark 3:21,
                                    > 3:33-34, 6:1-6, and his inclusion of Mary in the group who
                                    > will experience Pentecost: Acts 1:14
                                    > "All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer,
                                    > together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and
                                    > with his brothers."
                                    > In Mark 3:31-35 the implication is clear that his natural family
                                    > is excluded from the statement made about his redefined
                                    > family: "whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister,
                                    > and mother." Luke removes this implication in 8:19-21. We have,
                                    > then a consistent bias in favor of the woman of whom the
                                    > Spirit through Elizabeth said: "Blessed art thou among women."

                                    Mark 3.33-35 is indeed re-written by Luke to lessen the anti-Mary feeling. In
                                    fact the resulting pericope, Luke 8.19-21, looks very much like the pericope
                                    Luke 11.27-28 under discussion, particularly in Luke's characteristic
                                    adjustment "those hearing the word of God and doing / keeping it". In other
                                    words, I agree with the above.

                                    On this theme, Steve writes:

                                    > Well, maybe, but it's not the major theme of chapter 11. Indeed,
                                    > that chapter has almost nothing to do with the theme. 11:27-28
                                    > is completely non-integrated with the other material nearby,
                                    > the preceeding having to do with unclean spirits and their habits,
                                    > the following being a vicious attack on Jesus' generation.
                                    >
                                    > I invite readers to review Luke 11 for themselves and judge if
                                    > there is such an emphasis there, and to judge if
                                    > Luke's 11:27-28 is other than an unanticipated insertion.

                                    As Steve was saying earlier in respect to Thomas, one should be wary of paying
                                    attention to arbitrary chapter divisions. Why limit discussion of context to
                                    Luke 11? The theme of hearing the word of God and doing it is indeed a key one
                                    in the Central Section and the scene is most clearly set in Chapter 10 with
                                    material like "He who hears you hears me" (v. 17) and the whole Mary and Martha
                                    story ("sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching"). There is always
                                    another side of the coin for Luke: the question of rejection of the word of God
                                    and this is one of the other key themes in the Central Section.
                                    >
                                    > [It might be said that Luke has placed it there as a substitute
                                    > for the repudiation of the family event that he found in Mark,
                                    > which event he repaired and placed elsewhere. If so, and it's
                                    > not clearly so, I don't see where that gets us.]

                                    I think that the substitute idea is a good one, though to make sense of it we
                                    need Markan Priority without Q. Since Luke has already used Mark's Mothers and
                                    Brothers section in 8.19-21, when he comes across the same section just after
                                    Matt. 12.43-45 // Luke 11.24-26, he composes a substitute version, viz.
                                    11.27-28. I should add that this is Goulder's point and not mine.
                                    >
                                    > I don't think Mark's argument against contradiction will fly. Either
                                    > Elizabeth has got it right, or not. Jesus' answer in Luke, to
                                    > blessings upon his mother is, "Blessed RATHER are those...."
                                    > which DENIES blessings are due to his mother.

                                    Here we come back to the question of the interpretation of MENOUN in Luke. I
                                    think that perhaps I was too defensive about this in the article. It is quite
                                    legitimate to take this not necessarily as "Blessed, on the contrary, are those
                                    . . ." but as "Yes indeed, and blessed are . . ." I think that this is the way
                                    that it is taken by Risto Uro in an article in the recent _Thomas at the
                                    Crossroads_ but I do not have the book to hand. Consider these uses in the NT
                                    that make the point clearly:

                                    Rom 10.18: "But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed (MENOUNGE) they have; for
                                    'Their voice has gone out to all the earth . . .'"

                                    Phil. 3.8: "Indeed (MENOUNGE) I count everything as loss because of the
                                    surpassing worth of knowing Jesus . . ."

                                    But I have put a question to b-greek to check that I am not out on a limb on
                                    this one; and I will try to check the Uro book again.
                                    >
                                    > Here, I'm afraid, Mark is forced into special-pleading. There surely
                                    > is no contradiction between the macarism of the Holy Spirit
                                    > through Elizabeth and the idea of hearing and doing the word
                                    > of God. It is not as if you must choose between the Blessed
                                    > Mother and God's Word in Luke's view of things. But indeed the
                                    > saying says exactly that. It doesn't fit. Of course, according to
                                    > "Mark Goodacre's reading of Luke" it does fit. But Mark's reading
                                    > is certainly idiosyncratic (one suspects few Catholic exegetes
                                    > will immediately find it compelling) and hardly the stuff of which
                                    > redaction critical arguments can be constructed.

                                    Well I was attempting a narrative-critical argument to supplement the other
                                    redaction-critical ones, not being a fan of seeing the different methods in
                                    isolation from one another. Taking MENOUN as "Indeed; more than that" or
                                    similar would also deal with this criticism.

                                    <snip>

                                    > I'd say the notion that one should "hear the word of God and do it"
                                    > would be a cliche of Judaism. The conclusion of the
                                    > Sermon on the Mount 7:24 uses the cliche (although in terms re:
                                    > Jesus' teachings). Perhaps the best extended example of
                                    > the idea of hear and obey in the NT is in James 1:22-25,
                                    > which is not by virtue of the fact a demonstrably Lukan construction.
                                    > "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves.
                                    > Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what
                                    > it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at
                                    > himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who
                                    > looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do
                                    > this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it-- he will be blessed in
                                    > what he does."

                                    Indeed; but the fact that this is something of a cliche does not make it any
                                    the less Lucan in the Synoptic tradition. What we need to ask about is: (1)
                                    what cliches are preferred by individual synoptic writers? and (2) is there
                                    anything distinctively Lukan about the specific wording. The answer to (1) is
                                    that this cliche, if it is one, is beloved of Luke and not used at all by the
                                    other synoptists -- see the article. (2) The specific wording is
                                    characteristically Lukan and can be paralleled in agreed redactional reworkings
                                    of Mark. This is the strongest element in the case in my opinion.

                                    <snip>

                                    > Luke does indeed alter Mark 3:35 to accord with 11:28//Th79.
                                    > Mark G's claim that 11:28 is in accord with Luke's views of
                                    > obedience is absolutely correct and Luke's alteration of Mk
                                    > proves this. But it is not diamond hard reasoning to say that the
                                    > use of a phrase redactionally in one place proves that the phrase is
                                    > redactional in another place. Assuming, for example, that there
                                    > is a Matthean redactional use of "woe unto you pharisees" it
                                    > does not mean that Matthew did not find "woe unto you pharisees"
                                    > in traditional material. More likely Matthew picked up the phrase
                                    > from his traditional material and then made additional use of it.
                                    > So did Luke in the instance under discussion pick up a phrase
                                    > pleasing to him and make (only once) use of it.

                                    Indeed (MENOUN!) but phrase comes several times redactionally and many times
                                    overall in Luke-Acts. This is not the kind of evidence that is easily diluted
                                    -- it is not just "the use of a phrase redactionally in one place". If "Woe
                                    unto you Pharisees" was as common and as clearly redactionally inserted into
                                    Markan contexts in Matthew, I would say that this would have a similar claim to
                                    pervasive Matthean-ness.
                                    >
                                    > Thus we have in Luke 11:27-28 a motif that is unquestionably
                                    > Luke-pleasing. It's in accord with "hear the word of the Lord"
                                    > as ubiquitously in the prophets, and with hear-and-obey that
                                    > is an essence of Judaism and a motif found in many Christian
                                    > texts. It may well fit better in Luke than in Thomas even though
                                    > what does or doesn't fit in Thomas is a methodologically
                                    > bizarre question.

                                    Agreed that this is a difficulty, but it is one that should be attempted
                                    nevertheless as I do in the draft. Otherwise there will be something wanting
                                    in the argument. *In so far as we can say what is Thomasine*, the features
                                    in Thom. 79a are anomalous.
                                    >
                                    > What then to conclude?
                                    > Did Luke make up 11:27-28 from his own imagination? Mark G
                                    > isn't claiming this, I don't think. He's pretty ambiguous on the
                                    > point. Did Luke make up a repudiation of Jesus' mother's blessedness
                                    > and put it into a sequence where it has no coherent role? I say no.

                                    You rightly pick up on the ambiguity. Personally I think it highly likely that
                                    Luke did compose this on the basis of the similar Luke 8.19-21 and utilising
                                    pervasively Lukan themes and language. However I have been careful not to bind
                                    this into my argument because I do not think it is essential to it. Luke
                                    might have taken over some version of the saying from oral tradition,
                                    superimposing the Lukan themes and language in his re-writing of it; so I would
                                    not want to insist on Lukan composition, likely though it seems. What is
                                    important here is that Thomas shares the saying in its current Lukan form.
                                    >
                                    > Did Luke take X the unknown from tradition and revise it into
                                    > 11:27-28? I guess this is Mark's position. But by doing what to
                                    > it? Adding an anonymous interlocutor instead of.... what?
                                    > Adding "hear the word of God and keep it" instead of... what?
                                    >
                                    > We don't have a clue, of course. And that's where I began with this
                                    > analysis. We can't do redaction criticism of a unique saying.

                                    I don't know what might have been in an earlier version of the saying if one
                                    existed (which I personally doubt). Would we have been able to guess the
                                    original Markan version of Luke 8.19-21 if we had not had Mark 3.31-35? I
                                    doubt it, but that fact does not make Luke 8.21 R any less Lukan nor does it
                                    make the source in Mark any less Markan. And I think we can do redaction
                                    criticism on unique sayings. Didn't redaction-criticism all begin with Marxsen
                                    on Mark? And has not redaction-criticism been practised more on Mark than on
                                    other Gospels?
                                    >
                                    > In my estimation two things prove Luke did not invent this
                                    > saying. First, its failure to have any literary connection with
                                    > its surroundings in chapter 11 indicates that it came to Luke
                                    > from tradition and he stuck it where he did... rather than he
                                    > created it to fill a literary purpose in the composition of that
                                    > sequence. Second, it flatly contradicts the Holy Spirit's
                                    > blessing through Elizabeth which blessing is conceded to be
                                    > itself a Lukan construction.

                                    I hope that I have addressed these questions a little more carefully in my
                                    responses in this Email. I will attempt to re-write the article with these
                                    things in view.
                                    >
                                    > Is an anonymous interlocutor specifically Lukan over Thomas?
                                    > No. Are crowds Lukan rather than a feature of narrative gospels
                                    > generally? No. Is "womb" Lukan per se? No. Breasts? No.
                                    > The idea of "hear-and-obey the word of the Lord?" No. The
                                    > specific phraseology "hear the word of God and keep it"?
                                    > Perhaps. It's twice in Luke, once in Thomas and that's two times
                                    > as many. Luke liked it enough to revise Mark with it. And Luke
                                    > must have liked 11:27-28 for some reason or other... surely he
                                    > didn't like it simply because it repudiated the blessing on Mary.

                                    The difficulty with this is that it atomises the argument, as outlined
                                    previously. But further, it drastically understates the argument from "hearing
                                    the word of God and obeying it".

                                    Thanks again for the stimulation. I am indeed blessed to have such a
                                    sharp and cogent critic.

                                    Mark
                                    --------------------------------------
                                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                    Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                    University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                                    Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                    Aseneth Home Page
                                    Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                                    Mark Without Q

                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gthomas
                                    http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                  • Mark Goodacre
                                    Further on MENOUN: it seems that the Yes, but rather interpretation will run for Luke 11.28 and that this is the preferred translation of Fitzmyer. There
                                    Message 17 of 25 , May 6, 1999
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Further on MENOUN: it seems that the "Yes, but rather" interpretation will run
                                      for Luke 11.28 and that this is the preferred translation of Fitzmyer. There
                                      have been some useful contributions on this on b-greek (for which see:
                                      http://franklin.oit.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=b-greek).

                                      I have now looked at the Risto Uro essay that I referred to yesterday and
                                      quote:

                                      "This particle is probably to be understood in the corrective sense ("yes, but
                                      rather") and therefore has the effect of softening the contrast between
                                      maternal honour and true discipleship. In Thomas, biological motherhood is
                                      clearly contrasted with discipleship." ("Is Thomas An Encratite Gospel",
                                      Chapter 6 in Risto Uro (ed.), _Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel
                                      of Thomas_ (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
                                      1998), p. 148).

                                      Uro also comments on the relationship under discussion as follows:

                                      "The words 'hear the word of God and keep it' (cf. Luke 8.21) have a Lukan
                                      flavour. The similar expression in Thomas may therefore reveal a Lukan
                                      redaction. The latter suggestion does not, however, solve the question of a
                                      possibly independent tradition history behind the Thomasine saying, since the
                                      influence of the Lukan redaction may have occurred after teh two units were
                                      joined." (ibid.; Uro refers to Patterson for the independence of GThom. 79 from
                                      the Lukan redaction and to Schrage for the opposite view).

                                      Mark
                                      --------------------------------------
                                      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                                      Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                                      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                      Aseneth Home Page
                                      Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                                      Mark Without Q

                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gthomas
                                      http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                    • Stevan Davies
                                      I ve found this long-lasting discussion quite stimulating and so I hope Mark will be willing to continue on a bit. ... You write at considerable length
                                      Message 18 of 25 , May 10, 1999
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I've found this long-lasting discussion quite stimulating and so I
                                        hope Mark will be willing to continue on a bit.

                                        Mark Goodacre:

                                        > > (a) regarding foil questions and comments from anonymous individuals
                                        >
                                        > A key point that Steve does not consider is the presence of TIS (a certain one,
                                        > someone). This specific feature is strikingly Lukan: the five instances listed
                                        > are the only occasions in the synoptic tradition to feature a foil question
                                        > from an anonymous individual described as TIS. This is a sign of Luke's hand.

                                        You write at considerable length discussing this matter and
                                        dismissing my comments on the subject as not focusing on the
                                        precise point you are making (which I thought, evidently mistakenly)
                                        had to do with people speaking from crowds.

                                        > > 3. 13:23 "someone said to him" again does not give us a Lukan
                                        > > tendency for the claim "a person from the crowd said" is Lukan.
                                        > > No "crowd" appears here.
                                        >
                                        > This shifts the goalposts. 13.23 is an anonymous interlocutor, introduced by
                                        > TIS, asking a foil question, as in the passage under discussion. The fact
                                        > that there is no "crowd" here is not relevant to the case for the Lukan
                                        > character of anonymous interlocutors, introduced by TIS, asking foil questions
                                        > / making foil comments.

                                        It seems to come down to TIS. Very well. So I look at the Thomas
                                        passage and I simply cannot find a TIS anywhere. Since the argument
                                        is that TIS is characteristically Lukan, yet Thomas doesn't have TIS
                                        in 79 (or 72, or anywhere?) I just don't follow. Or is there a TIS
                                        that I fail to recognize in Thomas 79? This is entirely possible as
                                        my philological competencies are slim.

                                        But if there isn't one, surely the
                                        conclusion of your own argument is that this characteristically Lukan
                                        feature is conspicuously lacking in Thomas and so Thomas' dependence
                                        on Luke is questionable at best.

                                        > > Mark says that "this feature" comes at least five times in Luke
                                        > > defining "this feature" as "teaching "introduced by anonymous
                                        > > individuals." It occurs (according to Mark) twice in Thomas and
                                        > > the overlap with Luke reduces the Luke occurances to three
                                        > > (if we are not to beg the question). And it appears that one of the three
                                        > > appeared also in Q, reducing the potential "Lukan distinctiveness" number to
                                        > > two. [Other instances are taken by Luke from Mark.]
                                        >
                                        > This attempt to reduce the impact that the evidence makes is not persuasive
                                        > partly for reasons given above in relation to individual verses. But further,
                                        > evidence of a 0/0/5 (occurrences in Matthew / Mark / Luke) feature should not
                                        > be so lightly dismissed. Note here that there is some troubling movement away
                                        > from the one thing that everyone agrees we need in order to demonstrate
                                        > Thomasine knowledge of Luke: that Thomas should share with Luke some of the
                                        > latter's distinctive, redactional features. It won't do to say that Luke's
                                        > distinctive features are not distinctive because they are shared in a given
                                        > instance with Thomas. That is the very thing that is under discussion. If
                                        > every feature is held to be less distinctive because of a given parallel under
                                        > discussion in Thomas, then one is placed in a no-win situation in which one
                                        > begins to suspect that no evidence, however persuasive, will be allowed to
                                        > count in favour of Thomasine knowledge of Luke.

                                        Not so fast. Luke 12:13-14 // Thomas 72 is an independent case. If it
                                        otherwise shows evidence of Luke's distinctive features, then your argument
                                        will work. But it doesn't because, except for the rather dissimilar "one of
                                        the crowd said to him" (Lk) and "a man said to him," (Th) the
                                        sayings are really very different throughout. To say that this is
                                        definitively Lukan because of that slight and inexact overlap begs
                                        the question. I can't locate a TIS in Thomas here either and, again,
                                        if TIS is the distinctive Lukanism you focus on, and it is absent in
                                        Thomas 72 and 79, what's your point?

                                        > Actually the IQP reconstruct with TIS at Q 9.57, probably for the kind of
                                        > reason you mention, a good example of how easy it is to miss distinctively
                                        > Lukan terminology

                                        But if the IQP has judged correctly, then TIS is not distinctively
                                        Lukan terminology.

                                        If there are 4 cases in Luke, 1 in Q, 1 in Thomas, then to say
                                        therefore the fifth instance in Luke means that the second instance
                                        in Thomas is clearly Luke-redactional must be methodologically
                                        unsound. Won't you have to show that the other instance in Thomas
                                        is Luke-redactional for your thesis to hold?

                                        > I am not sure that the matter of "narrative" here in Thomas solves the problem.
                                        > Even if it is the case that we have what one might call some kind of narrative
                                        > progression (from saying 78 to 79), it is not clear to me that mention of a
                                        > "crowd" becomes inevitable. For where crowds are a key element in the whole
                                        > Synoptic portrait, they can hardly be a natural feature in a text that stresses
                                        > the communication of secret sayings.

                                        I haven't the foggiest notion why Thomas' incipit mentions "secret"
                                        sayings. Much of the text transmits Jesus-sayings that surely were
                                        known to anybody on earth with any interest in Jesus-sayings.

                                        > > I don't think Mark's argument against contradiction will fly. Either
                                        > > Elizabeth has got it right, or not. Jesus' answer in Luke, to
                                        > > blessings upon his mother is, "Blessed RATHER are those...."
                                        > > which DENIES blessings are due to his mother.
                                        >
                                        > Here we come back to the question of the interpretation of MENOUN in Luke. I
                                        > think that perhaps I was too defensive about this in the article. It is quite
                                        > legitimate to take this not necessarily as "Blessed, on the contrary, are those
                                        > . . ." but as "Yes indeed, and blessed are . . ."

                                        Oh dear. Let me see. We have RSV, NRSV, KJ, NIV with "rather" and
                                        New English with the even stronger, "No,...." I don't think an
                                        argument that goes "well, I will translate it differently so that it
                                        fits my case" is very persuasive. Do you have ANY NT translation by
                                        anybody else that runs "Yes indeed,...."?

                                        > Indeed; but the fact that this is something of a cliche does not make it any
                                        > the less Lucan in the Synoptic tradition. What we need to ask about is: (1)
                                        > what cliches are preferred by individual synoptic writers? and (2) is there
                                        > anything distinctively Lukan about the specific wording. The answer to (1) is
                                        > that this cliche, if it is one, is beloved of Luke and not used at all by the
                                        > other synoptists -- see the article. (2) The specific wording is
                                        > characteristically Lukan and can be paralleled in agreed redactional reworkings
                                        > of Mark. This is the strongest element in the case in my opinion.

                                        reworkings? I know of one. Are there more than one?

                                        > > In my estimation two things prove Luke did not invent this
                                        > > saying. First, its failure to have any literary connection with
                                        > > its surroundings in chapter 11 indicates that it came to Luke
                                        > > from tradition and he stuck it where he did... rather than he
                                        > > created it to fill a literary purpose in the composition of that
                                        > > sequence. Second, it flatly contradicts the Holy Spirit's
                                        > > blessing through Elizabeth which blessing is conceded to be
                                        > > itself a Lukan construction.
                                        >
                                        > I hope that I have addressed these questions a little more carefully in my
                                        > responses in this Email.

                                        You have addressed the second, certainly. But I still do not
                                        think you have addressed the first by asserting that it fits the
                                        context of chapter 10 etc.. It sure doesn't make sense to me
                                        in the context of 11:24-32. Generally, when an author invents a
                                        saying, he does so in order to further the argument made
                                        just prior, or introduce the argument to come. For example,
                                        Luke adds 11:24-26 at an entirely appropriate place, after other
                                        demon material. Then 11:27 follows, having zero to do with
                                        11:24-26. After 11:28 we suddenly hear Jesus complaining about
                                        this generation asking for a sign which, if it relates to anything at
                                        all, must relate to 11:27-28... which, of course, it doesn't. So
                                        between two somewhat coherent units (demons) (wicked generation)
                                        we have the passage in question... one said to be invented by
                                        Luke himself. But for what contextual purpose? I think the anomalous
                                        character of the saying in its context indicates that Luke has taken
                                        it from previous tradition and just stuck it in... Evangelists seem
                                        to do that sort of thing with traditional material. Evangelists do
                                        not seem to invent anomalous things and stick them into places
                                        where they don't fit.... and if you take 11:27-28 out the whole
                                        thing flows much more smoothly.

                                        Steve

                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gthomas
                                        http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                                        ... As I discussed in the related thread on B-Greek, the King James (Authorized) version has Yea rather. To argue that the KJV meant on the contrary is to
                                        Message 19 of 25 , May 10, 1999
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          At 03:16 PM 5/10/99 -0500, Stevan Davies wrote:
                                          >Mark Goodacre:
                                          >> Here we come back to the question of the interpretation of MENOUN in Luke. I
                                          >> think that perhaps I was too defensive about this in the article. It is quite
                                          >> legitimate to take this not necessarily as "Blessed, on the contrary, are those
                                          >> . . ." but as "Yes indeed, and blessed are . . ."
                                          >
                                          >Oh dear. Let me see. We have RSV, NRSV, KJ, NIV with "rather" and
                                          >New English with the even stronger, "No,...." I don't think an
                                          >argument that goes "well, I will translate it differently so that it
                                          >fits my case" is very persuasive. Do you have ANY NT translation by
                                          >anybody else that runs "Yes indeed,...."?

                                          As I discussed in the related thread on B-Greek, the King James
                                          (Authorized) version has "Yea rather." To argue that the KJV
                                          meant "on the contrary" is to miss the word "Yea."

                                          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

                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gthomas
                                          http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                        • Jacob Knee
                                          I thought folks might be interested to know that Brill is offering 316 of its titles at very reduced prices including: Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2 - 7 together
                                          Message 20 of 25 , May 11, 1999
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I thought folks might be interested to know that Brill is offering 316 of
                                            its titles at very reduced prices including:

                                            Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2 - 7 together with XIII, 2* Brit. Lib. Or. 4926 (1)
                                            and P. Oxy 1, 654, 655 (Gospel according to Thomas, Gospel according to
                                            Philip etc) for $45 (the previous catalogue price had been $238)

                                            There are several other of the Nag Hammadi codices included in the offer at
                                            the same price.

                                            They have a web site at:

                                            www.brill.nl

                                            Best wishes,
                                            Jacob Knee
                                            (Boston, England)


                                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gthomas
                                            http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                          • Mark Goodacre
                                            ... I reckon that we should regard the indefinite article (OU) in OUC2IME ( a woman ) as equivalent to Luke s indefinite pronoun in TIS GUNH ( a certain
                                            Message 21 of 25 , May 18, 1999
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On 10 May 99 at 15:16, Stevan Davies wrote:

                                              > It seems to come down to TIS. Very well. So I look at the Thomas
                                              > passage and I simply cannot find a TIS anywhere. Since the argument
                                              > is that TIS is characteristically Lukan, yet Thomas doesn't have TIS
                                              > in 79 (or 72, or anywhere?) I just don't follow. Or is there a TIS
                                              > that I fail to recognize in Thomas 79?

                                              I reckon that we should regard the indefinite article (OU) in OUC2IME
                                              ("a woman") as equivalent to Luke's indefinite pronoun in TIS GUNH ("a certain
                                              woman"). Cf. Greeven's re-translation of Thomas 79 into Greek, which begins
                                              EIPEN AUTWi TIS GUNH EK TOU OXLOU. This is very close to Luke 11.27.
                                              Likewise also Bethge's retranslation -- identical to Greeven's except that we
                                              have GUNH TIS rather than TIS GUNH. I think that this is likely to be correct
                                              and I note that similar moves from TIS to OU occur in Coptic versions of the NT
                                              (perhaps Mike would like to look this up on his new CD?)

                                              > Not so fast. Luke 12:13-14 // Thomas 72 is an independent case. If it
                                              > otherwise shows evidence of Luke's distinctive features, then your argument
                                              > will work. But it doesn't because, except for the rather dissimilar "one of
                                              > the crowd said to him" (Lk) and "a man said to him," (Th) the sayings are
                                              > really very different throughout. To say that this is definitively Lukan
                                              > because of that slight and inexact overlap begs the question. I can't locate a
                                              > TIS in Thomas here either and, again, if TIS is the distinctive Lukanism you
                                              > focus on, and it is absent in Thomas 72 and 79, what's your point?

                                              This has the same feature: TIS in Luke 12.13 and OU . . . in Thom. 72.
                                              There is another hint that Thomas might be following Luke in Thom. 72 // Luke
                                              12.13-15. Jesus replies to the man ANQRWPE (Man!, Luke 12.14), a form of
                                              address found on three other occasions in Luke and never elsewhere in the
                                              Gospels: 5.20, 22.58 and 22.60 (all redactional additions to Mark). Thomas has
                                              W PRWME in parallel, found in elsewhere only at Thom. 61. But this is a hint
                                              rather than a clear indicator.

                                              > > Actually the IQP reconstruct with TIS at Q 9.57, probably for the kind of
                                              > > reason you mention, a good example of how easy it is to miss distinctively
                                              > > Lukan terminology
                                              >
                                              > But if the IQP has judged correctly, then TIS is not distinctively
                                              > Lukan terminology.
                                              >
                                              > If there are 4 cases in Luke, 1 in Q, 1 in Thomas, then to say
                                              > therefore the fifth instance in Luke means that the second instance
                                              > in Thomas is clearly Luke-redactional must be methodologically
                                              > unsound. Won't you have to show that the other instance in Thomas
                                              > is Luke-redactional for your thesis to hold?

                                              I think that it is a cumulative argument. To find so many Lukan features is so
                                              short a piece is really too striking. And, though I hesitate to say it, the
                                              IQP is not entirely infallilble!

                                              > Oh dear. Let me see. We have RSV, NRSV, KJ, NIV with "rather" and
                                              > New English with the even stronger, "No,...." I don't think an
                                              > argument that goes "well, I will translate it differently so that it
                                              > fits my case" is very persuasive. Do you have ANY NT translation by
                                              > anybody else that runs "Yes indeed,...."?

                                              On this, see Stephen Carlson's response.

                                              > > Indeed; but the fact that this is something of a cliche does not make it any
                                              > > the less Lucan in the Synoptic tradition. What we need to ask about is: (1)
                                              > > what cliches are preferred by individual synoptic writers? and (2) is there
                                              > > anything distinctively Lukan about the specific wording. The answer to (1) is
                                              > > that this cliche, if it is one, is beloved of Luke and not used at all by the
                                              > > other synoptists -- see the article. (2) The specific wording is
                                              > > characteristically Lukan and can be paralleled in agreed redactional reworkings
                                              > > of Mark. This is the strongest element in the case in my opinion.
                                              >
                                              > reworkings? I know of one. Are there more than one?

                                              5.1 has "hear the word of God" (AKOUEIN TON LOGON TOU QEOU). See too the way
                                              that Luke writes 8.11-12. And then we have the many occurrences of the theme
                                              of hearing + keeping / doing in Acts.

                                              > You have addressed the second, certainly. But I still do not
                                              > think you have addressed the first by asserting that it fits the
                                              > context of chapter 10 etc.. It sure doesn't make sense to me
                                              > in the context of 11:24-32. Generally, when an author invents a
                                              > saying, he does so in order to further the argument made
                                              > just prior, or introduce the argument to come. For example,
                                              > Luke adds 11:24-26 at an entirely appropriate place, after other
                                              > demon material. Then 11:27 follows, having zero to do with
                                              > 11:24-26. After 11:28 we suddenly hear Jesus complaining about
                                              > this generation asking for a sign which, if it relates to anything at
                                              > all, must relate to 11:27-28... which, of course, it doesn't. So
                                              > between two somewhat coherent units (demons) (wicked generation)
                                              > we have the passage in question... one said to be invented by
                                              > Luke himself. But for what contextual purpose? I think the anomalous
                                              > character of the saying in its context indicates that Luke has taken
                                              > it from previous tradition and just stuck it in... Evangelists seem
                                              > to do that sort of thing with traditional material. Evangelists do
                                              > not seem to invent anomalous things and stick them into places
                                              > where they don't fit.... and if you take 11:27-28 out the whole
                                              > thing flows much more smoothly.

                                              Luke is influenced by the fact that the similar Mothers and Brothers pericope
                                              comes here in Matthew, having already used the original Markan story in a
                                              Markan block of material earlier on (Luke 8). But in terms of the construction
                                              of the narrative, Luke regularly has little interrupting episodes that attempt
                                              to divert the readers' and crowd's attention in the Central Section. Jesus
                                              deals with them by re-iterating key themes, like hearing and doing the word,
                                              and then progressing with the narrative, picking up the sequence where he has
                                              just left off. It is a narrative technique I rather like.

                                              I suspect that there is not a great deal more that can be said about this one.
                                              If so, thanks again for your help in formulating my ideas and thanks for such a
                                              sharp critique.

                                              Mark
                                              --------------------------------------
                                              Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                              Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                              University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                                              Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                                              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                              Aseneth Home Page
                                              Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                                              Mark Without Q

                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
                                              http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                            • Mike Grondin
                                              ... Easy enough to look up, Mark - difficult to transliterate (I wonder if a Coptic font can be sent and received via e-mail?) I ve tried to reproduce the
                                              Message 22 of 25 , May 18, 1999
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                >(perhaps Mike would like to look this up on his new CD?)--Mark G.

                                                Easy enough to look up, Mark - difficult to transliterate (I wonder if a
                                                Coptic font can be sent and received via e-mail?) I've tried to reproduce
                                                the passages under discussion (below), though there are still some
                                                uncertain spots in the English, and the transliteration is spotty, so it's
                                                only suitable for rough work. WRT the immediate point at issue (TIS), the
                                                Coptic is 'AU', which = A + OU (the 'A' indicating past tense for the verb
                                                'FI'). Other than that, some differences in Coptic wording are due to
                                                differences in dialect, others not (esp. GThom's 'LOGOC' vs Coptic-Luke's
                                                'WAJE'). Hope this is useful. --Mike

                                                Luke 11.27:
                                                Lk: AS.Wwpe De 2M.p.TReF.je NAeI
                                                It-happened, however, as-he-was-saying these-things,
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Lk: AU.S2IMe.FI 2PA=S eBOL 2M.p.MHHWe peXA=S NA=F je
                                                a-woman-took herself out(of)the-crowd. Said-she to-him this:

                                                Th: peXe.OU.S2IMe NA=F 2M.p.MHHWe je
                                                Said-a-woman to-him in-the-crowd this:
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Lk: NAeIAT=S N.thH eNTAS.FI 2ARO=S
                                                Blest-is-she, the-belly which-she-bore under-her,

                                                Th: NeeIAT=S N.th2H NTA2.FI 2ARO=K
                                                Blest-is-she, the-belly which-bore under-you,
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Lk: MN.Ne.KeIBe NAeI eNTAK.jI M.MOOU
                                                &the-breasts, those which-you-took (them).

                                                Th: AYw N.KIBe eNTA2.SANOUW=K
                                                and the-breasts which-nourished-you.
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Luke 11.28:
                                                Lk: NTO=F De peJA=F je
                                                (As-for)him, however, said-he this:

                                                Th: peJA=F NA=S je
                                                Said-he to-her this:
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Lk: NAeIAT=OU N.2OUO N.NeT.SwTM e.p.WAje
                                                Blest-are-they more those-who-listen to-the-word

                                                Th: NeeIAT=OU N.NeNTA.SwTM A.p.LOGOS
                                                Blest-are-they who-have-listened to-the-Word
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Lk: M.p.NOUTe eT.ARe2 eRO=F
                                                of(the)God who-watches over-him.

                                                Th: M.p.eIwT AY-ARe2 eRO=F 2N.OU.Me
                                                of-the-Father; they-watched over-him truly.
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Luke 23.29:
                                                Lk: OUN.2eN.2OOU N.2OU NSe.JOOS N.2HT=OY je
                                                There-are-days &they-say among-them this:

                                                Th: OUN.2eN.2OOU GAR NA.Wwpe NTeTN.jOOS je
                                                (For)There-are-days (-) will-come, &you'll-say this:
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Lk: NAeIAT=OY N.NA.6RHN NeM N.2H ete MpOU.MISe
                                                Blest-they the-barren, and the-bellies which don't-bear,

                                                Th: NeeIAT=S N.thH TAeI eTe-MpS.w
                                                Blest-she, the-belly, the-one which-doesn't-conceive
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Lk: Nem Ne.KeIBe ete MpOU.TSeNKO
                                                and the-breasts which don't-give-milk.

                                                Th: AYw N.KIBe NAeI eMpOY.Ti.eRwTe
                                                and the-breasts, those which-don't-give-milk.
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------


                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
                                                http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                              • Mike Grondin
                                                ... Unfortunately, the Brill site (http://www.brill.nl) lists only 107 of the 316 sale titles. The other sale titles (including the Nag Hammadi stuff that
                                                Message 23 of 25 , May 19, 1999
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  At 12:39 PM 05/11/99 +0100, Jacob Knee wrote:
                                                  >I thought folks might be interested to know that Brill is offering 316 of
                                                  >its titles at very reduced prices including:

                                                  Unfortunately, the Brill site (http://www.brill.nl) lists only 107 of the
                                                  316 sale titles. The other sale titles (including the Nag Hammadi stuff
                                                  that Jacob mentioned) are apparently available only thru the catalogue.
                                                  I've ordered one, and anyone else wishing to do so can contact Wilma de
                                                  Weert <WEERT@...>. Be sure to give your mailing address.

                                                  Mike

                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
                                                  http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                                • Mike Grondin
                                                  Jacob mentioned one of the titles available in the Brill Millennium sale. Here s a more complete list: Facsimile editions: Vol. 1 (introduction) Vols 2-11: all
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , May 26, 1999
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Jacob mentioned one of the titles available in the Brill Millennium sale.
                                                    Here's a more complete list:

                                                    Facsimile editions:
                                                    Vol. 1 (introduction)
                                                    Vols 2-11: all except vol. 5 (codex IV), vol. 9 (Codex VIII),
                                                    and vol. 11 (Codices XI-XIII)
                                                    Vol. 12 (cartonnage)

                                                    Critical editions:
                                                    Codex I - Attridge
                                                    Codex II(2-7) & POxy fragments - Layton - sine qua non for Thomas studies
                                                    Codices V(2-5) & VI - Parrott
                                                    Codices IX & X - Pearson

                                                    Again, these titles are NOT listed as sale items on the Brill website
                                                    (http://www.brill.nl), but can be ordered via catalogue, available from
                                                    Wilma de Weert <WEERT@...>. The price is $45 each, which is absolutely
                                                    a steal, given Brill's normally-exorbitant pricing policy. The sale lasts
                                                    until August 31st, and is on a "first come, first serve" basis, while
                                                    supply lasts.

                                                    Mike
                                                    ------------------------------------
                                                    The Coptic GThomas, saying-by-saying
                                                    http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068/sayings.htm

                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
                                                    http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                                  • skirl@dds.nl
                                                    Thanks very much, Jacob & Mike, for bringing Brill s Millennium Offer to our attention. I saved $350 buying two books! I mentioned our discussion list to the
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , May 26, 1999
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Thanks very much, Jacob & Mike, for bringing Brill's
                                                      Millennium Offer to our attention. I saved $350 buying two
                                                      books! I mentioned our discussion list to the Boston
                                                      customer services people, they're very helpful and can be
                                                      reached at 1-800-962-4406.

                                                      Sytze

                                                      Gospel of Thomas Bibliography @
                                                      http://huizen.dds.nl/~skirl/
                                                      ECTHN EN MECW TOY KOCMOY


                                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                      eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
                                                      http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.