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

The Crowd

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    The purpose of this note is to discuss the section The Crowd on page 11 of Mark Goodacre s proposed paper. (I hope it won t be offputting to Mark that I ve
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 2, 2007
      The purpose of this note is to discuss the section "The
      Crowd" on page 11 of Mark Goodacre's proposed paper.
      (I hope it won't be offputting to Mark that I've used the
      impersonal mode here; it just seemed easiest.)

      General considerations:
      On p.7, Mark gives two criteria for establishing dependence
      for a given Thomasine parallel "beyond reasonable doubt":
      (1) The saying in question must bear "the pervasive,
      distinctive stamp of an evangelist", and
      (2) "The saying in question needs to be in some way
      uncharacteristic or anomalous in Thomas".

      Since I'm not qualified to discuss applications of the first
      criterion, I'll just be addressing applications of the second.

      Mark finds four Lukan features in Th79a (79.1-2):

      (a) Foil Questions and Comments from Anonymous Individuals
      (b) The Crowd
      (c) Gynaecology
      (d) Hearing the Word of God and Keeping It

      As per the subject of this note, (b) is in view here. Since
      the section is fairly short, I'll quote it in its entirety:

      "One of the most striking features of the parallel is the
      occurrence in Thomas of the term 'the crowd' (PMHWE),
      its sole occurrence in the text. We inevitably find ourselves
      asking 'What crowd?' for it is the first and last we hear of
      them. Indeed in the previous saying (Thomas 78), it is
      implied that Jesus and his disciples are not part of the
      kind of large group traveling through Israel that we see
      in Luke's Central Section but are, rather, those who have
      'come out to the countryside'. There is a marked contrast
      with Luke where 'the crowd/s' are present throughout,
      and no more so that in the Central Section [9 mentions
      from 11.14 to 14.25, plus 18.36]. They are, then,
      superfluous and irrelevant here in Thomas but
      coherent, important and pervasive here in Luke."

      In this paragraph, Mark isn't arguing that "the crowd"
      is superfluous and irrelevant to/in the entirety of
      Thomas (though he might have), but that it is so
      "here" - namely in the context of Th78. Now "here's"
      aren't all that frequent in Thomas, where one saying
      is often preceded/succeeded by another which seems
      to have no connection with it. But I do think that Th78
      should be taken as related to Th79 - though not in
      the way that Mark suggests. What I would suggest
      is that in Th78, the authors understood that Jesus
      was speaking to a crowd, and that it's that implied
      crowd which makes sense of the explicit mention
      of a crowd in Th79.

      Mark's reasoning is based on the assumption that
      Jesus is addressing his disciples in Th78. But Jesus
      presumably knows full well why _his disciples_ have
      come out to a "deserted area". In fact, in the Q
      parallel of Th78 (Lk 7.24-25, Mt 11:7-8), Jesus is
      addressing a crowd (about John the Baptist). So
      ironically, if Mark succeeds in showing that Th79a
      is dependent on Luke, he will have increased the
      probability that Th78 is also dependent on Luke,
      which would imply that there IS a crowd in Th78,
      which would in turn undercut Mark's reason for
      believing that there ISN'T one there! In other words,
      if his conclusion succeeds, it will have put into
      question one of the premises on which it depends.
      Obviously, there's something wrong there, and I
      think what's wrong is the assumption that Th78
      is addressed to the disciples. They are themselves
      in a deserted area, no doubt, but they aren't the
      ones being addressed. The ones being addressed
      are those who have come out to see them.

      Aside from Th78, is the notion of a crowd "superfluous
      and irrelevant" to the entirety of Thomas? I'd say not.
      It's only mentioned the once, I suggest, because the
      Thomasines didn't consider it a good thing to be part
      of "the crowd". It's the few, the single-ones who were
      chosen, that would enter the kingdom. "The crowd"
      may in fact have represented to them the mass of
      believers belonging to more orthodox churches.

      These comments aren't intended to undercut Mark's
      entire case, but rather to point to a weakness I see
      in it. I know that Mark welcomes such comments, as
      I would in his place, on the Nietzchean principle
      that what doesn't destroy (a theory or a paper) makes
      it stronger - by anticipating and thus dealing before-
      hand with objections. But even if one's theory were to
      be destroyed (which isn't the case here), I'm confident
      that Mark is one of those rare folks who believes that
      the evidence should be followed, wherever it leads.
      He is not, in short, part of "the crowd".

      Mike
      p.s.: In an earlier note, I referred to the Sahidic
      translation of Lk 11:27. That should have been 11:28.
    • William Arnal
      Hi all: As a supplement to Mike Grondin s comments on the crowd -- with which I am in total agreement -- let me add that for Mark Goodacre s argument on this
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 2, 2007
        Hi all:

        As a supplement to Mike Grondin's comments on "the crowd" -- with which I am
        in total agreement -- let me add that for Mark Goodacre's argument on this
        point to be compelling, "crowd" would not only have to be *TYPICAL* of Luke
        (which it surely is), but also *DISTINCTIVE* of Luke. Otherwise (reductio ad
        absurdum), one could argue, for instance, that references to "Jesus", with
        which Luke is certainly redactionally interested, prove that texts in which
        this word occurs are Lukan compositions or have been altered by Luke, and
        therefore that other texts in which these texts concur in speaking of Jesus
        must be drawn from Luke. As it happens, while "crowd" is unquestionably a
        Lukanism, it isn't a distinctive Lukanism -- all of the other gospel writers
        use the term frequently, and Q has a few (two or three?) doubly-attested
        instances as well (providing one grants Q, which Mark G. of course doesn't).
        The figures I have at hand (they're probably very slightly off) are:
        Matthew: 50x; Mark: 38x; Luke: 41x; John 20x. So not only is the term not
        distinctive of Luke (it seems deeply embedded in the tradition, worldview,
        narrative, or what have you, of all the gospels); in addition it is actually
        MORE frequent in Matthew, and proportionately more frequent in Mark (given
        Mark's brevity over against Luke). I therefore don't find its occurrence in
        an L pericope to be an unquestionable Lukanism.

        Another side note about Lukanisms -- I'd be careful about basing too much of
        an argument re. a pericope in Luke proper (Luke 3 to 24) on vocabularic and
        stylistic features of Luke 1-2. Back in the day, no less a figure than
        Conzelmann doubted the properly Lukan nature of these chapters; and this
        idea is far from dead (more recently, Tyson's Luke and Marcion). Even if
        these chapters are original, they are also very distinctive in their
        subject-matter.

        I should also add that I completely agree with Mike's appreciation of Mark's
        work in this piece. I'd like to have contributed more to this discussion,
        but I'm swamped right now. Still, I should make one additional point: it
        would be a huge mistake to dismiss or criticize Mark's argument here -- as
        has occurred on-list -- on the grounds that it contradicts April DeConick's
        reconstruction of Thomas' literary history. In fact, that question (Thomas'
        stratification, or literary development) is necessarily SECONDARY TO and
        necessarily MORE SPECULATIVE than discussion of Thomas' literary
        relationship to the evangelists. As a result, the kind of prior question
        raised by Mark must be considered first, and on its own terms. Whatever
        one's assessment of his argument may be, then, will subsequently reflect
        (positively, neutrally, or negatively) on DeConick's assessment of the place
        of this pericope, and, by implication, for her entire hypothesis. For what
        it's worth (and worth that much less, since I don't have time at the moment
        to justify this assertion), I find the idea that saying #79 is from the
        earliest layer of Thomas to be frankly incredible.

        regards,
        Bill
        ______________________
        William Arnal
        University of Regina

        _________________________________________________________________
        Don�t waste time standing in line�try shopping online. Visit Sympatico / MSN
        Shopping today! http://shopping.sympatico.msn.ca
      • Frank McCoy
        ... From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of William Arnal Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:42 AM To:
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 3, 2007
          -----Original Message-----
          From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of William Arnal
          Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:42 AM
          To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [GTh] The Crowd

          (snip)

          >For what it's worth (and worth that much less, since I don't have time
          >at the moment to justify this assertion), I find the idea that saying
          >#79 is from the earliest layer of Thomas to be frankly incredible.


          Dear Dr. Arnal:

          Whether or not there even is an earliest layer of Thomas, it is possible
          that saying #79 arose in a pre-50 CE milieu.

          1. Oral and Written Tradition

          Regarding Luke 11:27-28 and Thomas 79a, i.e., 79:1-2(Footnote 1), Mark
          Goodacre states, "The two texts are close to each other. Most of the
          variations seem to be the kind that translation of a Greek original
          would explain. If we were looking at this degree of agreement among the
          Synoptics, we would usually incline towards literary dependence of some
          kind. Thus, while it is possible that a saying like this could have
          come independently via oral tradition to both Thomas and Luke, the
          closeness between the two sayings will suggest that it is worth looking
          further for signs of direct knowledge one way or the other. I would
          suggest that there is good evidence of such knowledge for this saying
          and that it runs in the direction from Luke to Thomas. (Footnote 2)

          Certainly, the closeness between the two sayings strongly supports the
          hypothesis that one has a literary dependency on the other-and this, in
          turn, severely weakens the hypothesis that the two sayings are based on
          a common oral tradition.

          However, this does not mean that there was no oral stage. As a result,
          we need to also examine the hypothesis that the sequence of events was
          this: Oral tradition ---> written saying #1 ---> written saying #2.

          In this regard, I am not aware of any readily apparent indicators that
          Luke 11:27-28 is based on oral tradition.

          Conversely, there are common catchwords between Thomas 79:1-2 and 79:3
          that indicate they were orally transmitted together.

          So, Stephen J. Patterson states, "Turning finally to Thom 79 itself, it
          is noteworthy that 79:1-2 is joined to 79:3 with the catchwords zh
          (womb) and nkibe (breasts). This indicates that the two units
          circulated together already at an oral stage in their tradition-history,
          where this mnemonic device first acquired its usefulness. Their linking
          in Thomas, then, is not to be attributed to the redactional work of a
          Thomas author/editor, but to an earlier stage in the history of the
          tradition itself." (Footnote 3)

          In support of this idea that Thomas 79 originated in an oral period,
          there is a third catchword in it as well. This is neeiat
          (blessed)-which occurs twice in Thomas 79:1-2 and once in Thomas 79:3.

          In light of the apparent lack of evidence for Luke 11:27-28 having had
          an oral stage in its transmission, but the evidence for Thomas 79 having
          had an oral stage in its transmission, it would appear that this is the
          most likely sequence: Oral tradition ---> Thomas 79:1-3 ---> Luke
          11:27-28.

          As a result, evidence regarding oral tradition apparently favors the
          hypothesis that Luke was aware of Thomas 79:1-2 and used it when writing
          Luke 11:27-28.

          2. The Sitz im Leben of the Oral Period

          Of the three catchwords apparently used in oral transmission of Thomas
          79, two of them, i.e., nkibe (breasts) and neeiat (blessed), are unique
          to it. (Footnote 4) The third, i.e., zh (womb) also occurs in Thomas
          69-but, there, it appears to mean, "stomach" rather than "womb".

          As a result, two of these catchwords are anomalous in Thomas and the
          third appears to have a meaning that is anomalous in Thomas.

          What this strongly suggests is that, in the oral period, Thomas 79
          originated and initially orally circulated in a non-Thomasine
          environment.

          What, then, was the most likely sitz im leben for the creation and
          initial oral circulation of Thomas 79?

          For clues to answering the question, let us examine Thomas 79:
          (79:1) A woman from the crowd said to him, 'Blessed are the womb which
          bore you and the breasts which nourished you.' (79:2) He said to [her],
          'Blessed are those who have heard the word of the father and have truly
          kept it. (79:3) For there will be days when you (pl.) will say, 'Blessed
          are the womb which has not conceived and the breasts which have not
          given milk.'"

          This contains a highly unusual belief-which is that a woman is not
          blessed by marrying and having children but, rather, by hearing the word
          of the Father and, furthermore, keeping this word of the Father by
          choosing not to marry and have children.

          Indeed, I know of only one Jewish group in the first century CE who
          espoused such a belief, and this is the Therapeutae.

          The word of God had a special meaning to the Therapeutae.

          For example, illustrating how the President of the Therapeutae spoke on
          the scriptures to them during one of their festival gathering, Philo (in
          The Contemplative Life, 78)states, "The exposition of the sacred
          scriptures treats the inner meaning conveyed in allegory. For to these
          people the whole law book seems to resemble a living creature with the
          literal ordinances for its body and for its soul the invisible mind
          (nous) laid up in its wording. It is in this mind especially that the
          rational soul begins to contemplate the things akin to itself and
          looking through the words as through a mirror beholds the marvelous
          beauties of the concepts, unfolds and removes the symbolic coverings and
          brings forth the thoughts and sets them bare to the light of day for
          those who need but a little reminding to enable them to discern the
          inward and hidden through the outward and visible."

          Note that what the President spoke to them regarding the scriptures was
          not the literal text but, rather, its underlying meaning. Further, this
          underlying meaning is the soul of the Torah and it is, as such, a mind
          (nous) akin to a "rational soul", i.e., a human mind. Indeed, it is so
          akin to a human mind that it contains concepts that are also inherent in
          the human mind, so that to learn them is a process of recollection.

          In short, what the President spoke to them was the Word-the Mind of
          which the human mind is an inferior copy. (Footnote 5)

          The Therapeutae who gathered for the festival and listened to the
          President expound on the Word included women, who are thusly described
          by Philo, "The feast is shared by women also, most of them aged virgins,
          who have kept their chastity not under compulsion like some of the Greek
          priestesses, but of their own free will in their ardent yearning for
          wisdom. Eager to have her for their life mate they have spurned the
          pleasures of the body and desire no mortal offspring but those immortal
          children which only the soul that is dear to God can bring to birth
          unaided because the Father has sown in her spiritual rays enabling her
          to behold the verities of wisdom." (Footnote 6)

          Note that most of the Therapeutic women who heard the Word were "aged
          virgins" and were unmarried and without mortal offspring by choice.
          Further, they were blessed in the sense that they were dear to the
          Father--Who enabled them to behold the verities of Wisdom and to give
          birth to immortal children.

          Clearly, this is the intellectual climate in which Thomas 79 apparently
          arose-an intellectual climate in which, it was held, a woman who is
          blessed is not one who marries and has children but, rather, one who
          hears the Word of the Father and follows it by choosing to be unmarried
          and without mortal offspring.

          The apparent sitz in leben for Thomas 79, then, was either in a
          Therapeutic environment or, at least, within a group familiar with the
          Therapeutae.

          Since (1) almost all the Therapeutae lived in Egypt, particularly in the
          Alexandria area, and since (2) we do not hear anymore of them after c.
          50 CE, this suggests that Thomas 79 arose in or around Alexandria, most
          likely before 50 CE.

          We are now in a better position to understand why the three catchwords
          in Thomas 79 are anomalous in Thomas. That is, it arose early in a
          pre-gospel period of oral transmission in or near Alexandria and, so,
          entered the environment of the Thomas community, probably somewhere in
          greater Syria, as an alien artifact.

          This also explains why, in Thomas, the word Logos (Word) only appears in
          79. It was a part of the lingo of the Therapeutic intellectual climate
          in which 79 arose and, so, it is an import from a non-Thomasine milieu.

          In any event, that Thomas 79 apparently arose by 50 CE supports the
          other evidence that it initially was transmitted orally-for the earliest
          gospels appear to have only risen in a later time period.

          3. Thomas 79:3//Luke 23:29

          There is a strong parallel to Thomas 79:3 in Luke 23:29, which suggests
          a literary dependency between the two.

          If, as suggested above, there was the sequence of: Oral period --->
          Thomas 79:1-3, then the expectation is not only that Luke 11:27-28 is
          based on Thomas 79:1-2, but that Luke 23:29 is based on Thomas 79:3 as
          well.

          Indeed, this appears to be the case.

          Let us look at Luke 23:28b-29:
          (23:28b) Jesus said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not cry for me. But,
          cry for yourselves and for your children. (29) Because, behold, days are
          coming in which they will say, 'Blessed are the barren and the wombs
          which did not bear and the breasts which did not nurse.'"

          However, all the daughters of Jerusalem faced one or more of these
          brutal realities during the Roman siege and taking of Jerusalem:
          1. Death by starvation
          2. Death by violent means
          3. Rape and/or torture
          4. Enslavement.
          So, not even those daughters of Jerusalem who were childless because
          they were barren or unmarried were blessed.

          This saying is clearly out of its appropriate environment here-like a
          beached whale.

          The implication: In view of the apparent literary relationship between
          this Lukan saying and Thomas 79:3, this Lukan saying is based on Th
          79:3, where it has nothing to do with the siege of Jerusalem or, for
          that matter, the barren.

          4. The Word of the Father

          Goodacre states, "In short, a key theme in Thomas is that one finds life
          by properly listening to the sayings of Jesus. The matter of 'hearing
          the word of the Father and truly keeping it' in Thomas 79 is not at home
          here, and it is not at home because it has come to Thomas from Luke, for
          whom this is, by contrast, a major and distinctive emphasis." (Footnote
          7)

          No question about it, "hearing the word of the Father and truly keeping
          it' is an alien artifact in Thomas.

          However, it is by no means certain that it comes from Luke.

          For example, I don't recall Goodacre giving any examples of Luke using
          the phrase "the word of the Father". So, this phrase appears to be
          absent from his gospel and from Acts-or, at least, to be quite
          rare--and, so, to be uncharacteristic of Luke: who appears to have found
          "the word of God" and "the word of the Lord" more pleasing to himself.

          Also, as pointed out above, Thomas 79:1-3 might have come to the Thomas
          community as an oral tradition from the Alexandria area-in which case it
          expresses a Therapeutic perspective in which the woman who is blessed is
          not one who is married and has children but, rather, one who has chosen
          to be unmarried because she hears and keeps the Word. Further, since
          Philo explicitly states that these unmarried Therapeutic women were, in
          some sense, impregnated by the Father, enabling them to give birth to
          immortal children, it appears that the Word they heard and kept was the
          Word of the Father.

          Which alternative is more likely: that 70:1-2 comes from Luke or from a
          Therapeutically oriented oral tradition?

          There is a way to test this. That is:
          1. As Goodacre points out, for Luke, hearing the word of God/the Lord
          tends to be hearing the proclaimed Gospel.(Footnote 8)
          2. In Therapeutic thought, the Word (of the Father) is the inner meaning
          of the Torah.

          In this regard, I am not aware of any usage of "Gospel" or "Good News"
          in Thomas.

          On the other hand, there is some evidence that, while the Thomas
          community rejected the observance of the literal level of the Torah,
          they did accept that it has an inner meaning that ought to be obeyed.
          See, for example, 27 and 53: where one is enjoined to obey the deeper
          meaning of the ordinances of the Law regarding fasting, the Sabbath and
          circumcision.

          So, the available evidence apparently suggests that the phrase, in
          Thomas 79:1-2, of "the word of the Father" more likely comes from a
          Therapeutically inspired (and, so, probably pre-50 CE) oral tradition
          than that it comes from Luke.

          Footnotes:
          1. While Goodacre speaks of Thomas 79a in his paper, there is a
          different manner of dividing Thomas passages, used by some scholars,
          that is strictly numerical and it will be used in this post. The
          strictly numerical equivalent of Thomas 79a is Thomas 79:1-2.
          2. Luke 11:27-28//Thom 79a: A Case of Thomasine Dependence, pp. 5-6
          (Note: I do not have a printer and do not know how to do copy and paste
          with Adobe text, so this and other quotes from Goodacre's paper might
          have a rather high error rate. I hope not, but fear this might turn out
          to be the case.
          3. The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, p. 60
          4. That "blessed" is neeiat in 79:1-2 is a major problem for the
          hypothesis that 79:1-2 is based on Luke 11:27-28. The expectation is
          that, since makarios is used in Luke 11:27-28, the Coptic should have,
          in this case, the Greek loan word of makarios rather than neeiat. This
          expectation is heightened by the situation that, everywhere else in
          Thomas, this Greek loan word is used rather than neeiat (at least, this
          is my understanding). So, that neeiat is what we find in 79:1-2
          strongly suggests that it is not based on Luke 11:27-28
          5. So, in Who is the Heir, 235-6.Philo states, "The divine Word
          separated and apportioned all that is in nature. Our mind deals with
          all the things material and immaterial which the mental process brings
          within its grasp, divides them into an infinity of infinities and never
          ceases to cleave them. This is the result of its likeness to the Father
          and Maker of all..And thus it will be natural that these two which are
          in the likeness of God, the mind within us and the mind above us, should
          subsist without parts or severance and yet be strong and potent to
          divide and distinguish everything that is."
          6. The Contemplative Life, 65
          7. p. 20
          8. p. 17

          Frank McCoy
          St. Paul, MN USA 55109
        • Michael Grondin
          ... Two factors might count against this: (1) if the Coptic translators (or, as I would say, designers ) were looking at the Sahidic translation of Luke, they
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 5, 2007
            Frank McCoy writes:
            > The expectation is that, since makarios is used in
            > Luke 11:27-28, the Coptic should have, in this case,
            > the Greek loan word of makarios rather than neeiat.

            Two factors might count against this: (1) if the Coptic translators
            (or, as I would say, "designers") were looking at the Sahidic
            translation of Luke, they would have seen NEEIATx, and
            (2) the use of Greek terms in Coptic Thomas seems to
            have been very carefully measured, both as to number
            of Greek words used, and as to the total number of letters
            in those words.

            As to the first factor - and bearing in mind my discussion
            with Mark about the use of WAxE in the Sahidic translation
            of Luke instead of LOGOS - it occurred to me that I hadn't
            determined whether the Sahidic translation _ever_ uses a
            Greek word. That's an important thing to determine, since
            if it _never_ uses a Greek word, we can't infer anything
            from its use of the Coptic in a particular case. OK, so I've
            got that on my list of things to do, but if anyone else can
            answer that crucial question before I can find time to get
            to it, it'd be much appreciated.

            As to the second factor, I've determined that Coptic
            GTh essentially uses 500 Greek words and names
            composed of 2400 letters. Given that, a particular
            choice between the use of a Greek word or its Coptic
            equivalent in a particular saying might well have been
            governed by mathematical considerations.

            Mike
          • benedictlo1
            ... Three words in Coptic may be translated as blessed, lucky, fortunate, congratulations, etc. They are - SMOU: used as a verb MAKARIOUS (Greek-loan
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 5, 2007
              > Frank McCoy writes:
              > The expectation is that, since makarios is used in
              > Luke 11:27-28, the Coptic should have, in this case,
              > the Greek loan word of makarios rather than neeiat.

              Three words in Coptic may be translated as "blessed, lucky,
              fortunate, congratulations, etc." They are -
              SMOU: used as a verb
              MAKARIOUS (Greek-loan Coptic): used as a noun
              NAIAT or NEEIAT: derived from Coptic "NAA IAT". [Lit. Great are your
              eyes!]

              Coptic word NAIAT or NEEIAT means "You have such a great sense of
              eyes,so you are blessed." which has a subtle difference of meaning
              from MAKARIOUS.
              (Ref. Plumley Grammar book)

              Several examples were given in the early Christian writings:

              "Congratulations [NAIAT] to you, Simon - Son of Jona, for this was
              not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (Mt 16:17)

              "Then he turned to his disciples and said privately, "Congratulations
              [NAIAT] to the eyes that see what you see." (Lk 10:23)

              And she (Mary) began to speak to them these words: "I," she said, "I
              saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, 'Lord, I saw you today in
              a vision.' He answered and said to me,' Congratulations [NAIATE] to
              you, that you did not waver at the sight of me.'"(GMary p.10)

              Why did Jesus praise Simon Peter (Mt 16:17), his disciple (Lk 10:23),
              and Mary? Because something inspired Peter and Mary and led them to
              have a special vision to understand thing behind the surface. This
              kind of inspiration and vision is the main thing that Jesus wants the
              seekers to get it in many GTh sayings. Since the content of the
              sayings in Mt 16:17, Lk 10:23 and GMary already have mentioned that
              kind of vision, the word (abbreviated expression) in English
              translation works there; but not for those sayings when the meaning
              of NEEIAT or NAIAT is not clearly appreciable.

              The translation of "Congratulations, Blessed or Lucky" in English
              does not represent the complete meaning of "NAIAT - NEEIAT". One way
              to put GTh79 (so to the above Mt, Lk, and GMary) in English would be:

              A woman is the crowd said to him, "Congratulations to the womb/belly
              that bore you and the breasts that nourished you, (for they are
              blessed)! He said to her "Congratulations to those who (with a great
              sense of eyes and) has listened to the Logos of Father and have kept
              It in truth. For there will be days when you will
              say, 'Congratulations to the womb/belly that has not conceived
              and the breasts that have not given milk, (for they have a great
              sense of eyes)!'"

              It is also worth pointing that when "giving birth or earth family
              thing" was mentioned in GTh, Jesus always turned the discussion to
              something related to Father.

              GTh79 (as above)
              GTh99. The disciples said to him, ¡§Your brothers and your mother
              are standing outside.¡¨ He said to them, ¡§Those who do the will of
              my Father are my brothers and my mothers. They are the ones who will
              enter the Kingdom of my Father.¡¨
              GTh15. Jesus said, ¡§Whenever you see one who was not born of woman,
              fall on your faces and worship him. That one is your Father.¡¨

              It seems that in many occasions Jesus was repeatedly telling readers,
              a MAKARIOUS is he who lives beyond the earthen life and NEEIATx those
              who would bring the sense of inner (spiritual) one that sees one
              supposes to see.


              Comments on the issues of source connection:

              1. In Mark Goodacre's new paper, "Luke 11.27-28 // Thom. 79a: A case
              of Thomasine Dependence", I found that his most intriguing argument
              is that a unique feature of Lukan "Logos of God" which // "Logos of
              Father" in GTh79. Indeed, "LOGOS or WAJE" in singular is used only
              once in GTh here and used several times in Luke and many times in
              Acts. However, the meaning of Logos of God here may not be referred
              to Jesus sayings nor the scripture. It could mean something else.
              One possibility is the inner one that God puts it in human being
              which is the focus of GTh. (Luke might mean differently here as he
              and Matthew did to other sayings.) In addition, one possibility to
              interpret "the womb/belly that has not conceived and the breast that
              has not given milk" in GTh79b is referred to those who transform
              themselves to angel-like beings in the heaven (Mk 12:24-25; Mt 22:29-
              20; Lk 20:34-36a) and children of God / children of resurrection (Lk
              20:36b)

              Specifically, Luke 11.27-28 // Thom. 79a:
              A woman in the crowd said to him, "Unp1 is the womb/belly that bore
              you and the breasts that Unp2." He said to her, "Unp1 Unp3 are those
              who have heard the Word (logos) of God/Father and have kept it
              Unp4."

              The alternative terms used in the paired sayings are:
              Unp1: MAKARIOUS - NEEIAT.
              Unp2: you sucked - nourished you.
              Unp3: rather ¡V (none)
              Unp4: (none) - in a truth.

              Sometime we find that the Coptic translator wants the reader to pay
              attention to the special meaning of a saying, he would carefully
              choose words and many times use different kind of special terms in
              his translation. In GTh79, they are "NEEIAT (instead of
              MAKARIOUS)", "logos (instead of WAJE) of Father", and "in a truth (HN
              OU ME ¡V used here and Th69 only)".

              We should not ignore a fact that for many years no body links Luke
              11.27-28 and Luke 23:29 together [to the best of my knowledge].
              However, GTh79 itself (alone with many GTh sayings) represents a
              typical form of Jesus sayings in allegorizing pattern of double
              parables and double metaphors.

              2. It is highly convincing that words used in GTh are somewhat
              closer to Syrian Christian writings [providing those early ones] than
              their Greek counterparts. However, I found interesting for those
              theories that try to connect Diatessaron to GTh, but they don't pass
              my logic processing yet! Not even close.

              (I would like to thank Michael Gordin for his comments before posting
              the above.)
            • Frank McCoy
              ... From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Grondin Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:52 PM To:
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 5, 2007
                -----Original Message-----
                From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                Of Michael Grondin
                Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:52 PM
                To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas 79//Luke 11:27-28

                Frank McCoy writes:
                > The expectation is that, since makarios is used in
                > Luke 11:27-28, the Coptic should have, in this case,
                > the Greek loan word of makarios rather than neeiat.

                Two factors might count against this: (1) if the Coptic translators
                (or, as I would say, "designers") were looking at the Sahidic
                translation of Luke, they would have seen NEEIATx, and
                (2) the use of Greek terms in Coptic Thomas seems to
                have been very carefully measured, both as to number
                of Greek words used, and as to the total number of letters
                in those words.



                Mike:

                Might the Coptic translators/designers have been responsible for a
                highly unusual situaion?

                Here is the situation: Mark Goodacre notes in his paper that there are
                five passages in Luke's gospel where there are foil comments or
                questions with the Greek word tis. Four of these are foil comments with
                tis, so I think that they form a set, while the fifth one is an oddball.
                Each of the four foil comments with tis, that together constitute a set,
                is a part of a passage with a parallel in Thomas:

                Lukan Passage # // Thomas Saying #
                1. 9:57-58 // 86
                2. 11:27-28 // 79
                3. 12:13-15 // 72----->immediately followed by 12:16-21 // 63
                4. 14:15-25 // 64----->immediately followed by 14:26-27 // 55
                Note these features:
                1. The 4 Lukan passages are limited to the first half of Luke's special
                section of Lk 9:51-18:14
                2. The 4 Thomas sayings are limited to a zone from 64 to 86
                3. The 4 Lukan passages and the 4 Thomas sayings are in reversed order
                of each other.
                4. The math of the four Thomas sayings is this: 86 ( - 7) = 79 (- 7) =
                72 (- 8) = 64 .
                5. That the final gap is 8 rather than 7 appears to be deliberate
                because the math of the secondary sequence is: 63 (- 8) = 55.

                I think it highly improbable that all this is sheer coincidence. So,
                we appear to have deliberate design involving even some mathematics (at
                least to the extent of carefully counting the sayings in Thomas, just
                like we do today). But, who is/are the designer(s) of this design?

                I have been thinking that the prime suspect is Luke. As Goodacre points
                out, Luke's writing of four passages containing foil comments with tis
                is unique, indicating that such passages are pleasing to him alone--at
                least among the gospel writers. Since these four passages, apparently
                pleasing to him alone, are the framework upon which this design is
                built, he is logical one to have created the design, using Thomas as a
                source.

                But, if the Coptic editors of Thomas had been interested in mathematical
                considerations, even when they involve Greek words (such as tis?), might
                they have studied Luke interntly, noted the four relevant passages, and
                so constructed the Coptic version of Thomas (e.g., by moving sayings
                around) that this design came into being? What is your read on the
                situation?

                Puzzled,

                Frank McCoy
                St. Paul, MN



                63 ( -8) = 55








                :




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Michael Grondin
                Frank, Two observations - one of which seems to strengthen your case, the other to weaken it. Good news first? OK, in the sayings between 64 and 72 (where your
                Message 7 of 11 , Feb 6, 2007
                  Frank,
                  Two observations - one of which seems to strengthen your
                  case, the other to weaken it. Good news first? OK, in the
                  sayings between 64 and 72 (where your suggested pattern
                  is thrown off by 1) is saying 71 ("I will destroy this house and
                  no one will be able to build it up again"). You may recall that
                  in the past, I've suggested that Th71 might be taken as
                  talking about itself, i.e., that it itself is "a house which will
                  be destroyed". There are several reasons for thinking so.
                  For one thing, if two lines are removed from CGTh, the
                  total size of ApJn+GTh+GPh is 1100+666+1234=3000
                  lines, and that may be intentional. Furthermore, the removal
                  of the 48 letters of Th71 leaves almost exactly 16800,
                  which is 8*2100 (here the numeric value of 'IS' involved).
                  Also, Th71 lends itself to "destruction" because it's a
                  single block by itself, and its removal would thus not
                  result in any partial lines from surrounding sayings.
                  Furthermore (if more is needed), Th71 occurs on a
                  boundary line, 400 lines distant from "I watch over [the
                  world]" in Th10, and the last block of the first twelve
                  (of 24). If you were to remove Th71 from consideration,
                  the pattern of gaps of 7 between the four Lukan parallels
                  you mention would hold also for Th64-72 (minus 71).

                  The bad news is briefer: You exclude Lk 13:23 (one of
                  the five cases of "foil questions and comments" that
                  Mark G. mentions), apparently because you think that
                  it doesn't include the word TIS. But it does.

                  Mike
                • Michael Grondin
                  ... Whoops, sorry, Frank. I misinterpreted your remarks. As I now understand it, you exclude Lk 13:23 because it s a question, not a comment like the other
                  Message 8 of 11 , Feb 6, 2007
                    [me to Frank]:
                    > The bad news is briefer: You exclude Lk 13:23 (one of
                    > the five cases of "foil questions and comments" that
                    > Mark G. mentions), apparently because you think that
                    > it doesn't include the word TIS. But it does.

                    Whoops, sorry, Frank. I misinterpreted your remarks.
                    As I now understand it, you exclude Lk 13:23 because
                    it's a question, not a comment like the other four. OK,
                    then. All the news is good.

                    Mike
                  • Frank McCoy
                    ... From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Grondin Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:20 PM To:
                    Message 9 of 11 , Feb 6, 2007
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                      Of Michael Grondin
                      Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:20 PM
                      To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas 79//Luke 11:27-28


                      Whoops, sorry, Frank. I misinterpreted your remarks.
                      As I now understand it, you exclude Lk 13:23 because
                      it's a question, not a comment like the other four. OK,
                      then. All the news is good.


                      Mike:

                      Yes, I think Lk 13:23 an oddball because, while the other four are foil
                      comments with tis, it is a foil question with tis.

                      Note that:
                      (1) Lk 9:51-56, which immediately precedes the first of four foil
                      comments with tis in 9:57, relates how Jesus turned his face to
                      Jerusalem and, after his messengers were rebuffed by a Samaritan
                      village, went on to another village
                      (2) None of the other three foil comments with tis is immediately
                      preceded with a passage relating how Jesus went through one or more
                      villages or towns on his way to Jerusalem
                      (2) Lk 13:22, which immediately precedes the first and only foil
                      question with tis in 13:23, relates how Jesus was going through towns
                      and villages on his way to Jerusalem.

                      This suggests that Luke made a distinction between the foil comments
                      with tis and foil questions with tis and, so, deliberatedly "announced"
                      the occurrence of the first example of each of these two distinct types
                      through the device of making a comment about Jesus going through one or
                      more villages or towns on his way to Jerusalem.

                      And, if Luke made a distinction between foil comments with tis and foil
                      questions with tis, then I think we should as well.

                      Frank McCoy
                      St Paul, MN



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      Mike, Many thanks for this useful critique of my section on the crowd . I very much like your point about the importance of taking 78 seriously. Although I
                      Message 10 of 11 , Feb 7, 2007
                        Mike,

                        Many thanks for this useful critique of my section on "the crowd". I
                        very much like your point about the importance of taking 78 seriously.
                        Although I did not claim that 78 was addressed to the disciples, it
                        is worth asking who the implied audience of the "you" is in 78. The
                        most recent explicit mention of audience was in 72 where Jesus turns
                        to his disciples and addresses them. Of course one cannot rely much
                        on that kind of thing, and narrative coherence is hardly a feature of
                        Thomas, but in so far as there is an explicit indicator in Thomas, it
                        is the disciples. Outside of that observation, perhaps 78 should be
                        read together with 79 and anticipate its narrative setting, but it is
                        difficult to judge these things in Thomas. The synoptic parallel
                        doesn't get us very far with 78 because the whole context about John
                        the Baptist has gone and the meaning of the saying is now quite
                        different (a good illustration of Sanders's point about how context
                        and nuance make huge differences to the interpretation of a given
                        saying of Jesus).

                        Thanks again
                        Mark

                        On 02/02/07, Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > The purpose of this note is to discuss the section "The
                        > Crowd" on page 11 of Mark Goodacre's proposed paper.
                        > (I hope it won't be offputting to Mark that I've used the
                        > impersonal mode here; it just seemed easiest.)
                        >
                        > General considerations:
                        > On p.7, Mark gives two criteria for establishing dependence
                        > for a given Thomasine parallel "beyond reasonable doubt":
                        > (1) The saying in question must bear "the pervasive,
                        > distinctive stamp of an evangelist", and
                        > (2) "The saying in question needs to be in some way
                        > uncharacteristic or anomalous in Thomas".
                        >
                        > Since I'm not qualified to discuss applications of the first
                        > criterion, I'll just be addressing applications of the second.
                        >
                        > Mark finds four Lukan features in Th79a (79.1-2):
                        >
                        > (a) Foil Questions and Comments from Anonymous Individuals
                        > (b) The Crowd
                        > (c) Gynaecology
                        > (d) Hearing the Word of God and Keeping It
                        >
                        > As per the subject of this note, (b) is in view here. Since
                        > the section is fairly short, I'll quote it in its entirety:
                        >
                        > "One of the most striking features of the parallel is the
                        > occurrence in Thomas of the term 'the crowd' (PMHWE),
                        > its sole occurrence in the text. We inevitably find ourselves
                        > asking 'What crowd?' for it is the first and last we hear of
                        > them. Indeed in the previous saying (Thomas 78), it is
                        > implied that Jesus and his disciples are not part of the
                        > kind of large group traveling through Israel that we see
                        > in Luke's Central Section but are, rather, those who have
                        > 'come out to the countryside'. There is a marked contrast
                        > with Luke where 'the crowd/s' are present throughout,
                        > and no more so that in the Central Section [9 mentions
                        > from 11.14 to 14.25, plus 18.36]. They are, then,
                        > superfluous and irrelevant here in Thomas but
                        > coherent, important and pervasive here in Luke."
                        >
                        > In this paragraph, Mark isn't arguing that "the crowd"
                        > is superfluous and irrelevant to/in the entirety of
                        > Thomas (though he might have), but that it is so
                        > "here" - namely in the context of Th78. Now "here's"
                        > aren't all that frequent in Thomas, where one saying
                        > is often preceded/succeeded by another which seems
                        > to have no connection with it. But I do think that Th78
                        > should be taken as related to Th79 - though not in
                        > the way that Mark suggests. What I would suggest
                        > is that in Th78, the authors understood that Jesus
                        > was speaking to a crowd, and that it's that implied
                        > crowd which makes sense of the explicit mention
                        > of a crowd in Th79.
                        >
                        > Mark's reasoning is based on the assumption that
                        > Jesus is addressing his disciples in Th78. But Jesus
                        > presumably knows full well why _his disciples_ have
                        > come out to a "deserted area". In fact, in the Q
                        > parallel of Th78 (Lk 7.24-25, Mt 11:7-8), Jesus is
                        > addressing a crowd (about John the Baptist). So
                        > ironically, if Mark succeeds in showing that Th79a
                        > is dependent on Luke, he will have increased the
                        > probability that Th78 is also dependent on Luke,
                        > which would imply that there IS a crowd in Th78,
                        > which would in turn undercut Mark's reason for
                        > believing that there ISN'T one there! In other words,
                        > if his conclusion succeeds, it will have put into
                        > question one of the premises on which it depends.
                        > Obviously, there's something wrong there, and I
                        > think what's wrong is the assumption that Th78
                        > is addressed to the disciples. They are themselves
                        > in a deserted area, no doubt, but they aren't the
                        > ones being addressed. The ones being addressed
                        > are those who have come out to see them.
                        >
                        > Aside from Th78, is the notion of a crowd "superfluous
                        > and irrelevant" to the entirety of Thomas? I'd say not.
                        > It's only mentioned the once, I suggest, because the
                        > Thomasines didn't consider it a good thing to be part
                        > of "the crowd". It's the few, the single-ones who were
                        > chosen, that would enter the kingdom. "The crowd"
                        > may in fact have represented to them the mass of
                        > believers belonging to more orthodox churches.
                        >
                        > These comments aren't intended to undercut Mark's
                        > entire case, but rather to point to a weakness I see
                        > in it. I know that Mark welcomes such comments, as
                        > I would in his place, on the Nietzchean principle
                        > that what doesn't destroy (a theory or a paper) makes
                        > it stronger - by anticipating and thus dealing before-
                        > hand with objections. But even if one's theory were to
                        > be destroyed (which isn't the case here), I'm confident
                        > that Mark is one of those rare folks who believes that
                        > the evidence should be followed, wherever it leads.
                        > He is not, in short, part of "the crowd".
                        >
                        > Mike
                        > p.s.: In an earlier note, I referred to the Sahidic
                        > translation of Lk 11:27. That should have been 11:28.
                        >
                        >



                        --
                        Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
                        Associate Professor
                        Duke University
                        Department of Religion
                        118 Gray Building / Box 90964
                        Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
                        Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

                        http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
                      • Mark Goodacre
                        Bill, Thanks for your useful comments. I think the ideal is to look for distinctive features, and one often has to do that by looking for the way that certain
                        Message 11 of 11 , Feb 7, 2007
                          Bill,

                          Thanks for your useful comments. I think the ideal is to look for
                          distinctive features, and one often has to do that by looking for the
                          way that certain characteristic elements cluster together in a given
                          passage. With respect to crowds, of course this is not a distinctive
                          element in Luke (I argue that it is "coherent, important and
                          pervasive", not that it is distinctive), but in concert with other
                          features, and with its uncharacteristic nature in Thomas, I think it's
                          worth isolating for comment.

                          On the question of Luke 1-2, I am not persuaded by those who want to
                          isolate it too strongly from Luke 3-24, though it clearly has its own
                          self-contained narrative identity, with some points of contact with
                          the body of Luke and some points of divergence. Conzelmann had to
                          isolate it from Luke 3-24 because it contradicted his entire
                          salvation-historical scheme for Luke, especially the mixing of John
                          the Baptist and Jesus in Luke 1-2.

                          Thanks for the helpful comments on methodology too. I appreciate the
                          way that people are asking the bigger questions about how this little
                          piece of Thomas fits into the larger history of Thomas's origin and
                          development and I'd only add that this particular paper has a limited
                          goal, to argue for Thomasine familiarity with Luke in this one
                          example.

                          Mark

                          On 02/02/07, William Arnal <warnal@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hi all:
                          >
                          > As a supplement to Mike Grondin's comments on "the crowd" -- with which I am
                          > in total agreement -- let me add that for Mark Goodacre's argument on this
                          > point to be compelling, "crowd" would not only have to be *TYPICAL* of Luke
                          > (which it surely is), but also *DISTINCTIVE* of Luke. Otherwise (reductio ad
                          > absurdum), one could argue, for instance, that references to "Jesus", with
                          > which Luke is certainly redactionally interested, prove that texts in which
                          > this word occurs are Lukan compositions or have been altered by Luke, and
                          > therefore that other texts in which these texts concur in speaking of Jesus
                          > must be drawn from Luke. As it happens, while "crowd" is unquestionably a
                          > Lukanism, it isn't a distinctive Lukanism -- all of the other gospel writers
                          > use the term frequently, and Q has a few (two or three?) doubly-attested
                          > instances as well (providing one grants Q, which Mark G. of course doesn't).
                          > The figures I have at hand (they're probably very slightly off) are:
                          > Matthew: 50x; Mark: 38x; Luke: 41x; John 20x. So not only is the term not
                          > distinctive of Luke (it seems deeply embedded in the tradition, worldview,
                          > narrative, or what have you, of all the gospels); in addition it is actually
                          > MORE frequent in Matthew, and proportionately more frequent in Mark (given
                          > Mark's brevity over against Luke). I therefore don't find its occurrence in
                          > an L pericope to be an unquestionable Lukanism.
                          >
                          > Another side note about Lukanisms -- I'd be careful about basing too much of
                          > an argument re. a pericope in Luke proper (Luke 3 to 24) on vocabularic and
                          > stylistic features of Luke 1-2. Back in the day, no less a figure than
                          > Conzelmann doubted the properly Lukan nature of these chapters; and this
                          > idea is far from dead (more recently, Tyson's Luke and Marcion). Even if
                          > these chapters are original, they are also very distinctive in their
                          > subject-matter.
                          >
                          > I should also add that I completely agree with Mike's appreciation of Mark's
                          > work in this piece. I'd like to have contributed more to this discussion,
                          > but I'm swamped right now. Still, I should make one additional point: it
                          > would be a huge mistake to dismiss or criticize Mark's argument here -- as
                          > has occurred on-list -- on the grounds that it contradicts April DeConick's
                          > reconstruction of Thomas' literary history. In fact, that question (Thomas'
                          > stratification, or literary development) is necessarily SECONDARY TO and
                          > necessarily MORE SPECULATIVE than discussion of Thomas' literary
                          > relationship to the evangelists. As a result, the kind of prior question
                          > raised by Mark must be considered first, and on its own terms. Whatever
                          > one's assessment of his argument may be, then, will subsequently reflect
                          > (positively, neutrally, or negatively) on DeConick's assessment of the place
                          > of this pericope, and, by implication, for her entire hypothesis. For what
                          > it's worth (and worth that much less, since I don't have time at the moment
                          > to justify this assertion), I find the idea that saying #79 is from the
                          > earliest layer of Thomas to be frankly incredible.
                          >
                          > regards,
                          > Bill
                          > ______________________
                          > William Arnal
                          > University of Regina
                          >
                          > _________________________________________________________________
                          > Don't waste time standing in line—try shopping online. Visit Sympatico / MSN
                          > Shopping today! http://shopping.sympatico.msn.ca
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                          > Interlinear translation: http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          --
                          Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
                          Associate Professor
                          Duke University
                          Department of Religion
                          118 Gray Building / Box 90964
                          Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
                          Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

                          http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.