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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Feb 6 10:59 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 11 , Feb 6 1:20 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        [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 3 of 11 , Feb 6 6:06 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          -----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 4 of 11 , Feb 7 6:23 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 11 , Feb 7 6:32 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              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.