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

Re: [GTh] The Crowd

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Feb 7, 2007

      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


      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

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.