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

RE: [GTh] Thomas 79//Luke 11:27-28

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.