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

RE: [GTh] Design of the Coptic Prologue and Title-- ARAMAIC Connections?

Expand Messages
  • FMMCCOY@msn.com
    In his paper on Luke 11//27-28//Thomas 79:1-2, Goodacre lists five foil comments and questions from anonymous individuals in Luke: 1. 9:57 2. 11:27 3. 12:13 4.
    Message 1 of 32 , Feb 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In his paper on Luke 11//27-28//Thomas 79:1-2, Goodacre lists five foil
      comments and questions from anonymous individuals in Luke:


      1. 9:57
      2. 11:27
      3. 12:13
      4. 13:23
      5. 14:15 <outbind://91/#_ftn1> [1]

      He goes on to state, "Now foil comments and questions are common in the
      Synoptics and they are common in Thomas too (e.g. 91, 99, 100 and 104).
      The distinctive features of the five cases listed above is that these
      are the only places in the Synoptic tradition where a teaching is
      introduced by foil comments from anonymous individuals, always with tis.
      This feature comes at least five times in Luke and it is probably due to
      his own redaction, especially since three of the occasions (9.57, 13.23
      & 14.15) there is a contrast with Q/Matthew. It only occurs twice in
      Thomas (Thom. 72, Thom. 79) both times parallel to Luke."



      It is noteworthy that four of these five Lukan examples are foil
      comments. Only one is a foil question, i.e., Luke 13:23. So, it is an
      oddball and does not belong with the other four.



      Now, when we look at the other four, which are all foil comments, we
      find that each is a part of a Lukan passage with a parallel in Thomas:

      1. Luke 9:57 is a part of 9:57-58 which, in turn, has a parallel in
      Thomas 86
      2. Luke 11:27 is a part of 11:27-28 which, in turn, has a parallel
      in Thomas 79
      3. Luke 12:13 is a part of 12:13-15 which, in turn, has a parallel
      in Thomas 72
      4. Luke 14:15 is a part of 14:15-24 which, in turn, has a parallel
      in Thomas 64

      The implication is clear-there is a reversed literary relationship
      between the four Lukan passages of 9:57-58, 11:27-28, 12:13-15 and
      14:15-24 and their parallels in Thomas so that either (1) Thomas is
      utilizing Luke by moving backwards through it from 14:15 to 12:13-15 to
      11:27-28 to 9:57-58 or else (2) Luke is utilizing Thomas by moving
      backwards through it from 86 to 79 to 72 to 64.



      What is not readily apparent is the direction of the dependency. Is
      Luke following Thomas or is Thomas following Luke?



      A clue comes from these two observations:

      1. Luke 9:57-58 has a parallel in Matthew 8:19-20
      2. Luke 14:15-24 has a parallel in Matthew 22:1-10

      As a result, when: (1) A = a Lukan passage with a parallel in both
      Thomas and Matthew and when (2) B = a Lukan passage with a parallel only
      in Thomas, this is what we have for the four Lukan passages which are
      foil comments:

      1. 9:57-58 = A
      2. 11:27-28 = B
      3. 12:13-15 = B
      4. 14:15-24 = A

      This is a chiastic ABBA sequence, suggesting that Luke, in creating his
      four passages containing foil comments by anonymous individuals,
      deliberately did so utilizing a source chiastic format.



      In this case, Luke used Thomas and Matthew as his sources for creating
      his four passages containing foil comments by anonymous
      individuals-utilizing Matthew for 9:57-58 and 14:15-24 and utilizing
      Thomas for all four.



      Indeed, in strong support of this suggestion, there is evidence that
      Luke did use Mark, Matthew and Thomas as sources and did, on occasion,
      utilize them in a source chiastic fashion.



      For example, let us take Luke 11:24-12:12.



      When we have:
      A = A group of three Lukan passages, the first of which has a parallel
      in
      Mt, the second of which has a parallel in Th, and the third of which has
      a
      parallel in Mt and with the two Matthean parallels being in reverse
      order
      B = a Lukan passage with parallels in Mt, Mk, and Th and with a doublet
      in
      Chapter 8 of Lk
      C = a Lukan passage with a parallel in Mt
      D = a Lukan passage with no parallels
      E = A Lukan passage with a parallel in both Chapter 23 of Mt and Th
      F = A group of three Lukan passages, each of which has a parallel in
      Chapter
      23 of Mt
      then this is how Lk 11:24-12:12 looks:

      1 11:24-32 A <outbind://91/#_ftn2> [2]
      2 11:33 B <outbind://91/#_ftn3> [3]
      3 11:34-36 C <outbind://91/#_ftn4> [4]
      4 11:37-38 D
      5 11:39-41 E <outbind://91/#_ftn5> [5]
      6 11:42-44 F <outbind://91/#_ftn6> [6]
      7 11:45 D----------mirror plane
      6' 11:46-51 F <outbind://91/#_ftn7> [7]
      5' 11:52 E <outbind://91/#_ftn8> [8]
      4' 11:53-12:1a D
      3' 12:1b C <outbind://91/#_ftn9> [9]
      2' 12:2 B <outbind://91/#_ftn10> [10]
      1' 12:3-12 A <outbind://91/#_ftn11> [11]



      The implication of this elaborate, even baroque, schema is that Luke
      used Mk, Mt and Th as sources and that he deliberately constructed Lk
      11:24-12:12 the way he did so that it would have a source chiastic
      structure.



      Since Lk 11:27-28 is a part of this source chiastic structure, the
      implication is that Luke based it on Th 79.



      To conclude, there is a source chiastic structure to the four Lukan
      passages with foil comments which implies that Luke used Th 79:1-2 in
      writing Lk 11:27-28. This is also implied by a more elaborate source
      chisastic structure found in Lk 11:24-12:12.



      Frank McCoy
      St Paul, MN

      _____


      <outbind://91/#_ftnref1> [1] Pp. 9-10

      <outbind://91/#_ftnref2> [2] The first Lukan passage with a Matthean
      parallel is Lk 11:24-26//Mt 12:43-45, the Lukan passage with a Thomasine
      parallel is Lk 11:27-28//Th 79:1-2, and the second Lukan passage with a
      Matthean parallel is Lk 11:29-32//Mt 12:28-32, so that the two Matthean
      parallels are in reverse order: (1) Mt 12:33-35, (2) Mt 12:28-32

      <outbind://91/#_ftnref3> [3] The three parallels are Mt 5:15//Mk
      4:21//Th 33:2-3 and the doublet is Lk 8:16

      <outbind://91/#_ftnref4> [4] The Matthean parallel is 6:22-23

      <outbind://91/#_ftnref5> [5] The Matthean parallel in Mt 23 is 23:25-26
      and the Thomasine parallel is 89

      <outbind://91/#_ftnref6> [6] The three Lukan passages with Matthean
      parallels in Mt 23 are Lk 11:42//Mt 23:23, Lk 11:43//Mt 23:6, and Lk
      11:44//Mt 23:27--which coupling the IQP does take to be valid, despite
      the verbal differences

      <outbind://91/#_ftnref7> [7] The three Lukan passages with Matthean
      parallels in Mt 23 are Lk 11:46//Mt 23:4, Lk 11:47-48//Mt 23:29-31 and
      Lk 11:49-51//Mt 23:24-26

      <outbind://91/#_ftnref8> [8] The Matthean parallel in Mt 23 is 23:23
      and the Thomasine parallel is 39.

      <outbind://91/#_ftnref9> [9] The Matthean parallel is 16:11b

      <outbind://91/#_ftnref10> [10] The three parallels are Mt 10:26//Mk
      4:22//Th 6:5-6 and the doublet is Lk 8:17

      <outbind://91/#_ftnref11> [11] The first Lukan passage with a Matthean
      parallel is Lk 12:3-9//Mt 10:27-33, the Lukan passage with a Thomasine
      parallel is Lk 12:10//Th 44, and the second Lukan passage with a
      Matthean parallel is Lk 12:11-12//Mt 10:19-20, so that the two Matthean
      parallels are in reverse order: (1) Mt 10:27-33, (2) Mt 10:19-20




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • FMMCCOY@msn.com
      In his paper on Luke 11//27-28//Thomas 79:1-2, Goodacre lists five foil comments and questions from anonymous individuals in Luke: 1. 9:57 2. 11:27 3. 12:13 4.
      Message 32 of 32 , Feb 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In his paper on Luke 11//27-28//Thomas 79:1-2, Goodacre lists five foil
        comments and questions from anonymous individuals in Luke:


        1. 9:57
        2. 11:27
        3. 12:13
        4. 13:23
        5. 14:15 <outbind://91/#_ftn1> [1]

        He goes on to state, "Now foil comments and questions are common in the
        Synoptics and they are common in Thomas too (e.g. 91, 99, 100 and 104).
        The distinctive features of the five cases listed above is that these
        are the only places in the Synoptic tradition where a teaching is
        introduced by foil comments from anonymous individuals, always with tis.
        This feature comes at least five times in Luke and it is probably due to
        his own redaction, especially since three of the occasions (9.57, 13.23
        & 14.15) there is a contrast with Q/Matthew. It only occurs twice in
        Thomas (Thom. 72, Thom. 79) both times parallel to Luke."



        It is noteworthy that four of these five Lukan examples are foil
        comments. Only one is a foil question, i.e., Luke 13:23. So, it is an
        oddball and does not belong with the other four.



        Now, when we look at the other four, which are all foil comments, we
        find that each is a part of a Lukan passage with a parallel in Thomas:

        1. Luke 9:57 is a part of 9:57-58 which, in turn, has a parallel in
        Thomas 86
        2. Luke 11:27 is a part of 11:27-28 which, in turn, has a parallel
        in Thomas 79
        3. Luke 12:13 is a part of 12:13-15 which, in turn, has a parallel
        in Thomas 72
        4. Luke 14:15 is a part of 14:15-24 which, in turn, has a parallel
        in Thomas 64

        The implication is clear-there is a reversed literary relationship
        between the four Lukan passages of 9:57-58, 11:27-28, 12:13-15 and
        14:15-24 and their parallels in Thomas so that either (1) Thomas is
        utilizing Luke by moving backwards through it from 14:15 to 12:13-15 to
        11:27-28 to 9:57-58 or else (2) Luke is utilizing Thomas by moving
        backwards through it from 86 to 79 to 72 to 64.



        What is not readily apparent is the direction of the dependency. Is
        Luke following Thomas or is Thomas following Luke?



        A clue comes from these two observations:

        1. Luke 9:57-58 has a parallel in Matthew 8:19-20
        2. Luke 14:15-24 has a parallel in Matthew 22:1-10

        As a result, when: (1) A = a Lukan passage with a parallel in both
        Thomas and Matthew and when (2) B = a Lukan passage with a parallel only
        in Thomas, this is what we have for the four Lukan passages which are
        foil comments:

        1. 9:57-58 = A
        2. 11:27-28 = B
        3. 12:13-15 = B
        4. 14:15-24 = A

        This is a chiastic ABBA sequence, suggesting that Luke, in creating his
        four passages containing foil comments by anonymous individuals,
        deliberately did so utilizing a source chiastic format.



        In this case, Luke used Thomas and Matthew as his sources for creating
        his four passages containing foil comments by anonymous
        individuals-utilizing Matthew for 9:57-58 and 14:15-24 and utilizing
        Thomas for all four.



        Indeed, in strong support of this suggestion, there is evidence that
        Luke did use Mark, Matthew and Thomas as sources and did, on occasion,
        utilize them in a source chiastic fashion.



        For example, let us take Luke 11:24-12:12.



        When we have:
        A = A group of three Lukan passages, the first of which has a parallel
        in
        Mt, the second of which has a parallel in Th, and the third of which has
        a
        parallel in Mt and with the two Matthean parallels being in reverse
        order
        B = a Lukan passage with parallels in Mt, Mk, and Th and with a doublet
        in
        Chapter 8 of Lk
        C = a Lukan passage with a parallel in Mt
        D = a Lukan passage with no parallels
        E = A Lukan passage with a parallel in both Chapter 23 of Mt and Th
        F = A group of three Lukan passages, each of which has a parallel in
        Chapter
        23 of Mt
        then this is how Lk 11:24-12:12 looks:

        1 11:24-32 A <outbind://91/#_ftn2> [2]
        2 11:33 B <outbind://91/#_ftn3> [3]
        3 11:34-36 C <outbind://91/#_ftn4> [4]
        4 11:37-38 D
        5 11:39-41 E <outbind://91/#_ftn5> [5]
        6 11:42-44 F <outbind://91/#_ftn6> [6]
        7 11:45 D----------mirror plane
        6' 11:46-51 F <outbind://91/#_ftn7> [7]
        5' 11:52 E <outbind://91/#_ftn8> [8]
        4' 11:53-12:1a D
        3' 12:1b C <outbind://91/#_ftn9> [9]
        2' 12:2 B <outbind://91/#_ftn10> [10]
        1' 12:3-12 A <outbind://91/#_ftn11> [11]



        The implication of this elaborate, even baroque, schema is that Luke
        used Mk, Mt and Th as sources and that he deliberately constructed Lk
        11:24-12:12 the way he did so that it would have a source chiastic
        structure.



        Since Lk 11:27-28 is a part of this source chiastic structure, the
        implication is that Luke based it on Th 79.



        To conclude, there is a source chiastic structure to the four Lukan
        passages with foil comments which implies that Luke used Th 79:1-2 in
        writing Lk 11:27-28. This is also implied by a more elaborate source
        chisastic structure found in Lk 11:24-12:12.



        Frank McCoy
        St Paul, MN

        _____


        <outbind://91/#_ftnref1> [1] Pp. 9-10

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref2> [2] The first Lukan passage with a Matthean
        parallel is Lk 11:24-26//Mt 12:43-45, the Lukan passage with a Thomasine
        parallel is Lk 11:27-28//Th 79:1-2, and the second Lukan passage with a
        Matthean parallel is Lk 11:29-32//Mt 12:28-32, so that the two Matthean
        parallels are in reverse order: (1) Mt 12:33-35, (2) Mt 12:28-32

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref3> [3] The three parallels are Mt 5:15//Mk
        4:21//Th 33:2-3 and the doublet is Lk 8:16

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref4> [4] The Matthean parallel is 6:22-23

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref5> [5] The Matthean parallel in Mt 23 is 23:25-26
        and the Thomasine parallel is 89

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref6> [6] The three Lukan passages with Matthean
        parallels in Mt 23 are Lk 11:42//Mt 23:23, Lk 11:43//Mt 23:6, and Lk
        11:44//Mt 23:27--which coupling the IQP does take to be valid, despite
        the verbal differences

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref7> [7] The three Lukan passages with Matthean
        parallels in Mt 23 are Lk 11:46//Mt 23:4, Lk 11:47-48//Mt 23:29-31 and
        Lk 11:49-51//Mt 23:24-26

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref8> [8] The Matthean parallel in Mt 23 is 23:23
        and the Thomasine parallel is 39.

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref9> [9] The Matthean parallel is 16:11b

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref10> [10] The three parallels are Mt 10:26//Mk
        4:22//Th 6:5-6 and the doublet is Lk 8:17

        <outbind://91/#_ftnref11> [11] The first Lukan passage with a Matthean
        parallel is Lk 12:3-9//Mt 10:27-33, the Lukan passage with a Thomasine
        parallel is Lk 12:10//Th 44, and the second Lukan passage with a
        Matthean parallel is Lk 12:11-12//Mt 10:19-20, so that the two Matthean
        parallels are in reverse order: (1) Mt 10:27-33, (2) Mt 10:19-20




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.