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

Lk 5:39

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: GThos On: Lk 5:39 From: Bruce Luke 5:39 is a problem for students of Luke. It involves the evidence of Thomas, and the Luke passage in turn is evidence for
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 28, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      To: GThos
      On: Lk 5:39
      From: Bruce
       
      Luke 5:39 is a problem for students of Luke. It involves the evidence of Thomas, and the Luke passage in turn is evidence for the date of at least part of Thomas.
       
      Lk 5:39 ("The old wine is better"), which is not found in the otherwise parallel passages in Mk and Mt, is clearly paralleled in Thos 47, which puts it at the head of elements that precede it in Luke and parallels. The argument from Luke is that this is an addition at the end, hence the Lukan order is primary, and further, given the likelihood that Lk 5:39 (which puzzingly reverses the sense of the previous passages) is an anti-Marcionite addition to the orthodox text of Luke, the derivative Thomas passage cannot be earlier than c150.  
       
      For a current summary of how things look from this end, see
       
       
      DeConick includes Thos 47 in her "Kernel" layer. If her Kernel is indeed the oldest part of THomas, then Thomas cannot have begun coming into being before the middle of the 2nd century. (If there are other scenarios for the composition of GThos, such as the one I have earlier suggested, then an earlier date for some Thomas material remains possible).
       
      Of course, if working after c0150, the compiler or inventor of Thomas would have had gJohn also available, so that the hint of "living water" in Th 47 may represent an inspiration from that source (the similarity has been noticed by Pokorny and others). It seems not to be customary to look beyond the Synoptics for Thomas parallels, but perhaps John should also be routinely considered.
       
      Comments always welcome. If anyone knows of a clear case of Thomas > Synoptic directionality, I would be glad to hear of it.
       
      Bruce
       
      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
       
    • Richard Godwin
      So you say placed as an addition at the end shown GLuke came before GThomas?--likelihood. I think not. Note v. 39 is not in Codex Bezae. Richard. ... From: E
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 28, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        So you say placed as an addition at the end shown GLuke came before GThomas?--likelihood.  I think not.  Note v. 39 is not in Codex Bezae.
         
        Richard.
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 11:51 AM
        Subject: [GTh] Lk 5:39

        To: GThos
        On: Lk 5:39
        From: Bruce
         
        Luke 5:39 is a problem for students of Luke. It involves the evidence of Thomas, and the Luke passage in turn is evidence for the date of at least part of Thomas.
         
        Lk 5:39 ("The old wine is better"), which is not found in the otherwise parallel passages in Mk and Mt, is clearly paralleled in Thos 47, which puts it at the head of elements that precede it in Luke and parallels. The argument from Luke is that this is an addition at the end, hence the Lukan order is primary, and further, given the likelihood that Lk 5:39 (which puzzingly reverses the sense of the previous passages) is an anti-Marcionite addition to the orthodox text of Luke, the derivative Thomas passage cannot be earlier than c150.  
         
        For a current summary of how things look from this end, see
         
         
        DeConick includes Thos 47 in her "Kernel" layer. If her Kernel is indeed the oldest part of THomas, then Thomas cannot have begun coming into being before the middle of the 2nd century. (If there are other scenarios for the composition of GThos, such as the one I have earlier suggested, then an earlier date for some Thomas material remains possible).
         
        Of course, if working after c0150, the compiler or inventor of Thomas would have had gJohn also available, so that the hint of "living water" in Th 47 may represent an inspiration from that source (the similarity has been noticed by Pokorny and others). It seems not to be customary to look beyond the Synoptics for Thomas parallels, but perhaps John should also be routinely considered.
         
        Comments always welcome. If anyone knows of a clear case of Thomas > Synoptic directionality, I would be glad to hear of it.
         
        Bruce
         
        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
         
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: GThomas In Response To: Richard Godwin On: Lk 5:39 From: Bruce RICHARD: So you say placed as an addition at the end shown GLuke came before
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 28, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          To: GThomas
          In Response To: Richard Godwin
          On: Lk 5:39
          From: Bruce
           
          RICHARD: So you say placed as an addition at the end shown GLuke came before GThomas?--likelihood.  I think not.  Note v. 39 is not in Codex Bezae.
           
          BRUCE: Don't understand objection; in particular, absence in Bezae is confirmatory, not adverse. Herewith restate position.
           
          1. Bezae preserves at some points a text less interpolated than the ancestor of Vaticanus. It thus lacks some very early interpolations (the Western Non). Lk 5:39 fits that pattern (lacking in Bezae), and is thus not original in Lk, though early interpolated.
           
          2. Lk 5:39 is problematic as it stands, since it reverses the meaning of what precedes (and what all the Synoptics have). On those grounds too, it is an interpolation.
           
          3. Marcion (before 150) had generally opposed Christian reliance on "old" (Jewish) traditions, and in harmony with Lk 5:37-38 in particular, had insisted on the newness of Christianity. This is a position which may be seen as a development of that of Paul, who denied the efficacy of the Jewish Law to procure salvation, and Marcion's theology, and canon, are exclusively Pauline - Luke plus the ten then recognized Pauline Epistles. Marcion's opponents refused to follow him, preferring to retain the OT underpinning of Christianity as it was then understood. BIg controversy, still raging centuries later.
           
          4. Then Lk 5:39 is intelligible as an anti-Marcionite interpolation in Lk, designed to counter the use being made of Lk 5:37-38 by Marcion and his followers. I can find no other scenario which makes sense of the presence of Lk 5:39.
           
          5. Thos 47 unmistakably uses Lk 5:39.
           
          6. Lk 5:39 was not part of Lk until c150 at earliest.
           
          7. Then Thos 47, and everything in gThos which is in that same layer, or in any later later, is later than c150.
           
          Where's the flaw?
           
          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.