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

Re: [GTh] Lk 5:39 and the Thomas Scenario

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: GThos In Response To: Rick From: Bruce RICK: That L 47:3 is dependent on Lk 5:39 is indeed a possibility. However, as DeConick (OGTT, 175) points out,
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      To: GThos
      In Response To: Rick
      From: Bruce
       
      RICK: That L 47:3 is “dependent” on Lk 5:39 is indeed a possibility. However, as DeConick (OGTT, 175) points out, that is not a majority consensus.
       
      BRUCE: Suits me.
       
      RICK: Setting aside the conjecture that 47:3 was “welded” to 47:4 in the oral sphere, the question that looks for an answer is, why, if Thomas used Lk, was the position of 5:39 in its relation to Lk 5:37-38 reversed? Also, what does one make of the appearance in Thomas of key elements not found in Lk (and //)?

      BRUCE: Two questions, two answers. (1) On present assumptions, Thos is using Luke, but in ways of its own (Thomas is not a failed scribal copy of Lk). Lk reorders lots of things in his Markan source; so for that matter does Matthew. Barnabas drastically reorders the pieces of the Two Ways document in adding it to the end of his sermon. They do these things for reasons of their own, which I won't here attempt to specify. Why should Thomas not do the same? (2) Thomas has things to say about the world, he is not just making an anthology of Mt/Lk. That he adds to Mt/Lk is just as natural as that Mt or Lk in their turn should have added a ton of things to Mk.

      What is the default presumption here? That Thos is some kind of copyist? I don't find it tenable. I think that Thos has something to say, and has chosen Late Synoptic bits and pieces as an effective way of saying part of it. The rest he says with invented sayings. Exactly the relation of Luke to Mark, once one comes to think of it.

      RICK: Using Mark’s arrangement as the initial point of comparison, I see the elements of these pericopae in this way:

      BRUCE: Since Mark's arrangment does not include the disturbing element of Lk 5:39, I have to wonder how relevant this is. Rick has considered in detail the Synoptic counterparts of Thos. I know this because he has shared with me the chart of them. Is there any one of those situations in which the Markan form is the only one which has a detail also present in the Thomas form? That is, (if Thomas is late), any unambiguous case where Thomas is seeing Mark rather than one of the later Synoptics? If so, please specify; it would be important information for me. If not, why use Mark in this case? But let's proceed anyway.

      RICK:  

      Mark: [1] No one puts new wine into old wineskins <If they do>: [2] New wine will wreck seasoned skins; [3] New wine will be wasted; {4} New wine is for fresh skins.

      Matt: [1] No one puts new wine into old wineskins <If they do> : [3] New wine will be wasted; [2] New wine will wreck seasoned skins; {4} New wine is for fresh skins

      [* ] New wine in fresh skins saves both the (new) wine and the (old) wineskin (Unique to Matt).

       Luke: [1] No one puts new wine into old wineskins <If they do>: [3] New wine will be wasted; [2] New wine will wreck seasoned skins; {4} New wine is for fresh skins.

      [**] “No one after drinking old wine desires new” (shared by Luke and Thom)

       Thom: [**] “No one after drinking old wine desires new”. [1] New (un-aged) wine is not put in old wineskins <If it is>: [3] New wine will be wasted; [2] New wine will wreck seasoned skins; [***] Aged wine is not put into fresh skins (! Unique to Thom) <if it is>: [****] The old skin will spoil the new wine. (Unique to Thom)

      BRUCE: But my point, or anyway my point of interest, is precisely that the idea in question (however it is expressed precisely) is NOT unique to Thos, it is also present in a line unique to Luke, namely Lk 5:39.

      RICK:   Summary:

      Mark: [1],[2],[3],[4]

      Matt:  [1],[3],[2],[4], [*]

      Luke: [1],[3],[2],[4], [**]

      Thom: [**], [1],[3],[2],[***], [****]

      I suppose there are other ways, too, at looking at these arrangements of the elements- this is one way.

       
      BRUCE: Thanks for the diagrams, that makes the structure very clear. What I get from them is that the order of elements in Mt/Lk departs in a shared way from that in Mk (another of the pesky Minor Agreements). Then Thos is closer to Mt/Lk than to Mk, which for this passage answers my previous question. Bottom line: Thos is contacting the Synoptics, or they him, at the Second Tier level, not at the First Tier or Markan level.
       
      But more specifically, the connection with the Second Tier Gospels is with Luke and not with Matthew. If memory serves, the contact noticed by Mark Goodacre several years ago was also between Thomas and Luke. Are we getting a pattern here?
       
      Bruce
       
      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
       
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.