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

Re: Thomas 79 // Luke 11.27-28

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    ... I ll cross-post this response too, but I ve found the GThomas list startlingly and disappointingly uninterested in questions of this sort. Synoptic-L
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 18, 1999
      Mark Goodacre wrote:
      > I have temporarily uploaded to the web a draft of an article on the above
      > texts. I would be grateful for any comment. The thesis is that Luke 11.27-28
      > is the source for Thom. 79a.
      > The article is at:
      >
      > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/Thom79b.htm
      >
      > I would be grateful for any feedback, especially anything that will help me to
      > sharpen it up for publication.
      >
      > Apologies for cross-posting -- this also went to GThomas list.

      I'll cross-post this response too, but I've found the GThomas list
      startlingly and disappointingly uninterested in questions of this sort.

      Synoptic-L should
      be deeply concerned with this questiont because the Gospel
      of Thomas, if it is independent, serves to provide definitive
      evidence against the Farrer hypothesis and, indeed, most if not all
      arguments in favor of Matthean priority.

      Mark's argument is that Thomas knows the Lukan form of 11:27-28
      because its form is demonstrably Lukan. "If we were looking at this
      degree of agreement among the Synotics, we would usually include
      towards literary dependence of some kind." (But of course since
      we already know there was literary dependence there, the analogy
      begs the question here).
      And, if the form is demonstrably Lukan, the dependence must
      go from Luke to Thomas. I was tempted to say that this is
      tautological, but it is not. There is always the option of saying
      that the form is not Lukan in the sense that Luke created it,
      but rather the form is Lukan in the since that it is Luke-pleasing.
      As Mark might put it, Luke takes stuff from Matthew and leaves
      out other stuff, whyso? Because the stuff he takes is the "Luke-pleasing"
      stuff. Ditto for the stuff taken from Oral Tradition and that, I
      contend, was the case here... except for one striking
      Luke-displeasing anomaly I will address later.

      Mark finds it surprising that 11:27-28 and GTh 79 have not previously
      received serious attention. I think this stems from the fact that as
      a general rule authorial redaction requires an original X and a
      revision Y so that one can point to features of Y as altered from X.
      In this case we have only Z, for Luke, making redaction-claims
      much more difficult. Features of Z will have to be shown to be
      ipso facto Lukan for a case to be made, which is what Mark tries
      to do. As follows:

      (a) regarding foil questions and comments from anonymous individuals

      1. Luke has one at 9:57 // Mt 8:19. One might well assume then, that
      there existed a question in Q. Was that question
      that of "someone said" or "a scribe" (as in Mt). One assumes from Matthean
      tendencies that the more general "someone" was original. If so,
      then this cannot be adduced as an instance giving us an insight
      into Lukan redaction. Rather, it tells us that in Q, and probably in
      oral tradition prior to Q, this kind of anonymous interlocutor was
      sometimes utilized. (Same general problem if "a scribe" was original.
      The anonymous interlocutor is still not Lukan composition.)
      No crowd appears here.

      2. At 12:13 "one of the crowd said to him"// GTh 72 where we find
      "a man said to him."

      3. 13:23 "someone said to him" again does not give us a Lukan
      tendency for the claim "a person from the crowd said" is Lukan.
      No "crowd" appears here.

      4. 14:15 "When one sitting at table with him heard this he said
      to him" again does not give us a Lukan distinctive propensity for
      "a person from the crowd said". Sitting at table with him is a
      quite different thing than "the crowd."
      No "crowd" appears here.

      X. Mark should have included Lk 9:38 "And behold, a man from the
      crowd cried out..." which is taken directly from Mk. 9:17 "And one
      of the crowd answered him..."

      Y. There may be more in Mark, I've not investigated, but Mark G.
      should for if Luke is continuing a Markan trait then what he is
      doing is not a demonstrably Lukan trait. (Cf. Mk. 12:28, 10:17 and
      elsewhere). I think Mark G. must address this in his essay.
      For the question is not whether anonymous interlocutors are
      rare in Thomas, but whether they are distinctive to Luke.

      As Mark G. points out, Thomas has its anonymous interlocutors...
      e.g. 91, 99, 100, 104.

      Mark says that "this feature" comes at least five times in Luke
      defining "this feature" as "teaching "introduced by anonymous
      individuals." It occurs (according to Mark) twice in Thomas and
      the overlap with Luke reduces the Luke occurances to three
      (if we are not to beg the question). And it appears that one of the three
      appeared also in Q, reducing the potential "Lukan distinctiveness"
      number to two. [Other instances are taken by Luke from Mark.]

      Of those two,
      13:23 "someone said to him"
      14:15 "When one sitting at table with him heard this he said to him"
      Neither of which has any mention of "the crowd."

      Where does this leave us?

      Luke has 2 anonymous interlocutors uniquely
      Shares 2 with Thomas
      Shares 1 with Matthew (Q)
      Shares others with Mark

      Thomas also has at least four "they said/asked" anonymous
      interlocutors.

      Luke has two "man/woman from the crowd" passages one
      shared with Thomas and one differing from Thomas.

      I do not think this adds up to "a woman from the crowd" being
      a demonstrably Lukan usage.

      ===================
      (b) The crowd.
      No doubt "the crowd" is a big deal in Mark and thus in Luke. I don't
      suppose it needs to be argued that "crowd" is not a distinctively
      Lukan feature. Bible Gateway counts 38 in Luke and 35 in Mark and
      40 in Matthew and even John has 14.

      Thomas has but the one instance. Mark finds himself asking "what
      crowd?" and indirectly gives the answer. The answer is that
      Thomas 79 is not "a saying" at all. It is part of a longer sequence
      that has misleadingly been separated out in the
      process of publication (by whom, does anyone know, were the
      numbers assigned?). Were Thomas to have been numbered
      in a consistent manner we would have as a single unit:

      Jesus said, "Why have you (pl.) come out into the desert? To see a
      reed shaken by the wind? And to see a man clothed in fine
      garments like your kings and your great men? Upon them are the
      fine [garments], and they are unable to discern the truth."
      A woman from the crowd said to Him, "Blessed are the womb
      which bore You and the breasts which nourished You."
      He said to her, "Blessed are those who have heard the word
      of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when
      you will say, 'Blessed are the womb which has not conceived and
      the breasts which have not given milk.'"

      Mark writes "They (the crowds) are, then, superfluous and
      irrelevant here in Thomas but coherent, important and pervasive
      here in Luke." Well no, the crowd is not superfluous and irrelevant
      in the context of the whole unit. But yes, in Thomas, the idea
      of Jesus encountering a crowd is unique to this unit. And Salome
      is unique to 61, a Samaritan is found only 60, anonymous people
      displaying things to Jesus only in 100, anonymous people asking
      about Jesus' identity only in 90/91 [also a falsely separated unit]
      and so forth. Thomas is nothing if not filled with units that are
      anomalous... leaving the concept of "anomalous" rather foreign
      to Thomas-analysis because the consistency required to identify
      the anomalous is strikingly lacking in Thomas.

      Crowds are not a Lukan trait, they are a trait of all the
      narrative gospels... Thomas has almost no narrative at all, but
      in one of the very few instances it does have one (in 78/79 at least
      by implication people have gone out into the desert and Jesus
      addresses them) a crowd is mentioned. I don't think much of
      anything follows from this as regards Thomas' necessary dependence
      on Luke for the feature.

      ======================

      (c) Gynecology [part one]

      Mark lists nine instances where Luke uses "womb" 5 having do
      do with the birth of Jesus where it is hardly to be taken to indicate
      an odd fascination with gynecology, two are from the course of Jesus'
      ministry (both paralleled in Thomas), two from Acts where "from
      the womb" is simply a locution from "from birth" (as also, I think,
      in 1:15). I cannot see that this adds up to any support for the
      thesis that when we find the word 'womb' we find indications of Lukan
      distinctiveness.

      ==============

      More to come. You will have to bear with me... it generally takes
      twice as many pages to argue against a complexly argued case
      than it does to present the case... but I'll try do it in less.

      Steve Davies
      Professor of Religious Studies
      College Misericordia
      Gospel of Thomas Homepage (links recently checked and working)
      http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 4/18/1999 6:05:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, miser17@epix.net writes:
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 18, 1999
        In a message dated 4/18/1999 6:05:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        miser17@... writes:

        <<
        Mark's argument is that Thomas knows the Lukan form of 11:27-28
        because its form is demonstrably Lukan. "If we were looking at this
        degree of agreement among the Synotics, we would usually include
        towards literary dependence of some kind." >>

        Though I doubt that Mark actually wrote the latter sentence (in the above
        form: does "include" = "incline"?), my instinct favors the view that the
        author of Thomas knew Lk 11:27-28, and the Gospel of Luke. I agree that one
        can be said to have "demonstrated" this only in a qualified sense, but none
        of the sed contra arguments by miser ille shakes my confidence in the
        fundamental validity of that insight.

        Leonard Maluf
      • Stevan Davies
        ... Yeah. ... This appears to be a vote that Mark has qualifiedly quasi-demonstrated that Thomas knew Luke. It would be more helpful to hear what it is that
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 18, 1999
          > From: Maluflen@...
          > Mark's argument is that Thomas knows the Lukan form of 11:27-28
          > because its form is demonstrably Lukan. "If we were looking at this
          > degree of agreement among the Synotics, we would usually include
          > towards literary dependence of some kind." >>
          >
          > Though I doubt that Mark actually wrote the latter sentence (in the above
          > form: does "include" = "incline"?),

          Yeah.

          >my instinct favors the view that the
          > author of Thomas knew Lk 11:27-28, and the Gospel of Luke. I agree that one
          > can be said to have "demonstrated" this only in a qualified sense, but none
          > of the sed contra arguments by miser ille shakes my confidence in the
          > fundamental validity of that insight.

          This appears to be a vote that Mark has qualifiedly
          quasi-demonstrated that Thomas knew Luke. It would be more helpful
          to hear what it is that has provided you the confidence you have.
          A particular point of Marks? Or something else?

          Steve
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 4/18/1999 9:24:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, miser17@epix.net writes: (Leonard Maluf) ... one ... none ... (Stevan)
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 19, 1999
            In a message dated 4/18/1999 9:24:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            miser17@... writes:

            (Leonard Maluf)
            >my instinct favors the view that the
            > author of Thomas knew Lk 11:27-28, and the Gospel of Luke. I agree that
            one
            > can be said to have "demonstrated" this only in a qualified sense, but
            none
            > of the sed contra arguments by miser ille shakes my confidence in the
            > fundamental validity of that insight.

            (Stevan)
            << This appears to be a vote that Mark has qualifiedly
            quasi-demonstrated that Thomas knew Luke. It would be more helpful
            to hear what it is that has provided you the confidence you have.
            A particular point of Marks? Or something else?
            >>

            Steve, (my apologies, first of all, for the naughty miser joke)
            Actually, I have not read Mark's article, but I am grateful for your
            rehearsal (in the immediately preceding post) of Mark's main arguments. I
            shall attempt here, in the short time that is available to me at the moment,
            to respond to your above challenge to me, while at the same time addressing
            some of your objections to Mark's article as I recall them.

            First of all, since you asked, may I remark that (even without bonified
            "arguments") I quite literally have more confidence in my instinct on the
            matter of Thomas' dependence on the Synoptic tradition than I do in the
            arguments of the entire Thomas camp, which I consider to be flawed at a very
            fundamental level.

            Next, I should state up front that my own approach to the particular pericope
            in question would differ somewhat from Mark's, since I believe Luke's gospel
            is best understood as a rewriting of Matthew, without any consideration of
            GMk, which I believe came into existence only at a later date. I do of course
            agree wholeheartedly with the main supporting position of Mark G., namely,
            that Lk 11:27-28 is (more or less) demonstrably Lukan, but I would go about
            that demonstration somewhat differently than does Mark.

            Let me look first at the related passage, Lk 8:19-21, and its relationship to
            Matt 12:46-50. This text represents a thorough rewriting of the Matthean
            text, as is fairly typical of ALk. The importance of its location has been
            noted by most scholars (following the parable of the seed) and its new
            location to a large extent accounts for the rewording of Jesus' statement in
            8:21, which now clearly parallels 8:15.

            Not noted by most scholars is the relationship of this Lukan text to Exod
            18:1-12. This OT text is responsible for much of the re-wording of Lk 8:19-21
            with respect to its Matthean parallel, but also to specifics of its content.
            In Exod 18:1-12, relatives of the hero (Moses) come to see him, just as the
            relatives of Jesus come to see Jesus in Matt 12:46-50. Lk sees this as a
            "parallel" OT story, therefore, and so the theme of this story will also
            influence Luke's version of the account. In the OT story, e.g., the good news
            of salvation (the great Exodus event) is proclaimed for the first time to an
            "outsider", a "non-Israelite"-and-nevertheless-relative of Moses, who hears
            and accepts this word, and "does" it (i.e., offers sacrifice to God in
            thanksgiving: Exod 18:12). Now Matt's account has had Jesus make a contrast
            between non-believing Jews who are not obedient to his Father and the group
            of Jesus' (Jewish) disciples, who are. By removing the gesture of Jesus, in
            pointing to his disciples, Lk has updated the range of the contrast made:
            Jesus' statement now applies instead to the (mainly Gentile) peoples who in
            his time (that of the Pauline mission) are "hearing God's word and doing it".
            They illustrate the seed that fell on good ground (8:15). These people,
            according to Jesus' statement, thus become Jesus' true family, as opposed to
            those "of whom is the Messiah according to the flesh" (Rom 9:5). In my
            interpretation of the passage then, Mary, and Luke's mariology, are not at
            issue at all in this passage (contra Stevan, and many others, notably R.
            Brown included). Mary is employed symbolically: she is viewed as the physical
            mother of Jesus, and as such she and the brothers and sisters of Jesus
            SYMBOLIZE the Jewish people "of whom is the Messiah according to the flesh".
            Brown et al. fail to note the significance of the anarthrous character of the
            reference to Jesus' mother and brothers in Lk 8:21. They can only be a (casus
            pendens) predicate of Jesus' statement.

            Luke has accomplished wonderful things by this rewriting of Matt, but at the
            same time there are aspects of the Matthean text that are necessarily lost by
            Luke's rewriting; and Luke is very sensitive to these and will remedy them by
            creating other "doublets" of the account. Primarily, the statement of Jesus
            in Lk 8:21 no longer contains the striking mother-father contrast that we
            find within Matt 12:46-50, where, in response to word that his (earthly)
            MOTHER and brothers seek to speak with him, Jesus responds by praising, as
            members of his true family, those who do the will of his FATHER who is in
            heaven. It is my belief that Lk 1:41-51 is relevant here, and is, among other
            things, a second parallel to Matt 12:46-50 (and 13:54-58). In this Lukan
            text, Jesus' MOTHER is SEEKING him (as in Matt 12:46-50, diff. Lk 8:19-21),
            and Jesus responds with a reference to his FATHER. Indeed, the contrast is
            even sharpened by Luke, because Jesus' (earthly) father is also present in
            the incident, to contrast more sharply with Jesus' (real) heavenly Father.

            We come now to Lk 11:27-28. Why the need for ALk to create yet another
            parallel to Matt 12:46-48? Well, for one thing, having removed the Matthean
            story from its original context in order to make the connection between 8:15
            and 8:21, ALk has now arrived at the Matthean setting for that story, and
            this in itself is reason enough to account for Luke THINKING of that Matthean
            story at this point in his narrative. It is important to see, however, that
            this is indeed another parallel to Matt 12:46-50, and especially to Luke's
            own 8:19-21, but the form, and the terms of the story are much more clearly
            Luke's own (as Mark G. seems to have attempted to demonstrate in his article).

            There are parallels in Lk 11:27-28 to Matt 12:46-48 that are NOT found in Lk
            8:19-21. In the Matthean text, e.g., Jesus is SPEAKING, and Jesus' mother and
            brothers seek to SPEAK with him. So you have the idea of Jesus' family trying
            to talk Jesus down, as it were, instead of "listening" to him when he is
            speaking. ALk has introduced a slightly different contrast in Lk 8:19-21,
            namely, that of a family who WISH to SEE Jesus (cf. Matt 12:38, where some
            scribes and Pharisees WISH to SEE a sign from heaven: and recall that the
            family of Jesus in Luke's story symbolizes the Jewish people, who "seek
            signs" [1 Cor 1:22]), which will contrast later in Lk's account by the
            statement of Jesus regarding those who HEAR God's word and do it. So, the
            idea of Jesus being shouted down while he is trying to speak is absent from
            Lk 8:19-21 (replaced by the contrast SEE vs. HEAR), but, lo and behold, it
            shows up here in Lk 11:27-29, where a woman from the crowd raises her VOICE
            (cf. Prov 8:1 Heb) while Jesus is SPEAKING to the crowd.

            There is also an analogous aspect in this story, with respect to that of
            8:19-21, in the sense that Jesus' final statement takes up the terms of the
            word spoken to Jesus: in 8:19-21, Jesus speaks of "my mother and my
            brothers", because he has been told: "your mother and brothers are standing
            outside...". Here, in Lk 11:27-28, the woman has uttered a macarism, and so
            Jesus responds with a counter-macarism. But apart from these
            differences-within-analogy, the contents and message of the pericope, and in
            particular of the statement of Jesus, are identical, I think, to that of Lk
            8:19-21. Including the symbolic character of the reference to Jesus' mother
            as symbolizing the people "of whom is the Messiah according to the flesh", in
            contrast to those who are now (largely Gentiles) hearing God's word and
            doing/guarding it. This, by the way, is the key to the connection of this
            pericope to the surrounding, especially the immediately following, material
            in Lk 11 (contra Stevan), where Jesus speaks of Johah and Ninevites and the
            queen of the south, contrasting the openness of pagans to the message of
            salvation, to the closedness and hostility of "this generation" which seeks a
            sign (Lk 11:29).

            The necessity for Lk 11:27-28, even after Luke has already given two versions
            of Matt 12:46-50, can also be justified by one problematic detail of the
            Matthean account left undeveloped by Lk in his earlier "versions" of the
            story. In Matt 12:50, it is fairly clear how, in a metaphorical sense, those
            can become brothers and sisters of Jesus who do the will of his Father in
            heaven: they enter Jesus' family as his siblings by participating in his
            sonship of obedience to the heavenly Father. But Jesus also says that such
            persons will be his "mother", the meaning of which is not at all clear in
            itself, and is not dealt with by Luke's two other parallels to this Matthean
            pericope. It seems to me that this pericope (Lk 11:27-28) is focusing very
            much on the theme and question of "in what sense can one become the MOTHER of
            Jesus in the new order"? Luke speaks of carrying in the womb and breasts that
            give milk. Is he thinking, in metaphorical terms, of the nourishment that
            comes from hearing the Word of God and the carrying of that word as a way of
            guarding it in one's heart, where mother-imagery is applied in different ways
            to those who are preaching, and those who hearing and living by the Word, in
            the Gentile mission? In any case, it is not only typical of Luke to speak
            about wombs and breasts, but it is a general trait of Luke's to focus very
            strongly on body parts and their significance. This is why, instinctively
            (sorry, Stevan, if this doesn't appeal to you as an argument), I am inclined
            to see Lk 11:27-29 as a thoroughly Lukan text, based, as to its substance, on
            Matt 12:46-50 and Luke's own parallel to this account, but exhibiting
            typically Lukan bio-contemplative interests as to its form.

            Leonard Maluf
          • Stevan Davies
            (Leonard Maluf) ... If Luke is a rewriting of Matthew with or without any consideration of GMk then Thomas is dependent on Luke. That is because Thomas shares
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 19, 1999
              (Leonard Maluf)

              > I should state up front that my own approach to the particular pericope
              > in question would differ somewhat from Mark's, since I believe Luke's gospel
              > is best understood as a rewriting of Matthew, without any consideration of
              > GMk, which I believe came into existence only at a later date.

              If Luke is a rewriting of Matthew with or without any consideration
              of GMk then Thomas is dependent on Luke. That is because Thomas
              shares too many Luke sayings variants against Matthew and
              one will assume that those variants are Lukan redaction of Matthew.
              The only alternative would be that Luke is dependent on another
              source than Matthew for a lot of sayings that are found in Matthew.
              Stephen Carlson seems to think that this position is in fact held
              by some Griesbachians and, if so, then Thomas' independence
              could still be asserted for the Thomas sayings in Lk against Mt
              will be from that other source. I don't see this becoming a widely
              supported position.

              > There is also an analogous aspect in this story, with respect to that of
              > 8:19-21, in the sense that Jesus' final statement takes up the terms of the
              > word spoken to Jesus: in 8:19-21, Jesus speaks of "my mother and my
              > brothers", because he has been told: "your mother and brothers are standing
              > outside...". Here, in Lk 11:27-28, the woman has uttered a macarism, and so
              > Jesus responds with a counter-macarism. But apart from these
              > differences-within-analogy, the contents and message of the pericope, and in
              > particular of the statement of Jesus, are identical, I think, to that of Lk
              > 8:19-21.

              Your complex analysis of all this goes over my head, but perhaps
              that's because I don't share your initial Griesbachianism.

              I'd just observe that Lk has changed the original story, whether Mk,
              Mt, GTh, to one that does not exclude his biological family from his
              metaphorical family and this is just what one would expect from the
              author of Luke 1-2 and Acts 1. That's why Mark's argument has a
              fatal flaw, for the "Blessed, rather..." of 11:27-28 is contra-Lukan.

              It might be argued that Thomas 79 is contra-Thomasine, as Mark
              does, but then there we are. Both authors may have included the
              same saying that, in some of its elements, goes against tendencies
              in the whole of the texts they are contained in.

              How can this be? Well, if you are constructing a Jesus to do the
              teachings you want him to do, and using Jesus material wherein
              Jesus is teaching whatever he wants to teach, there's always a
              chance that Jesus' own views will slip in, eager as you might be
              to keep them out.

              Steve
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 4/19/1999 3:48:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, miser17@epix.net writes: (Stevan)
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 19, 1999
                In a message dated 4/19/1999 3:48:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                miser17@... writes:

                (Stevan)
                << If Luke is a rewriting of Matthew with or without any consideration
                of GMk then Thomas is dependent on Luke. That is because Thomas
                shares too many Luke sayings variants against Matthew and
                one will assume that those variants are Lukan redaction of Matthew.
                The only alternative would be that Luke is dependent on another
                source than Matthew for a lot of sayings that are found in Matthew.
                Stephen Carlson seems to think that this position is in fact held
                by some Griesbachians and, if so, then Thomas' independence
                could still be asserted for the Thomas sayings in Lk against Mt
                will be from that other source. I don't see this becoming a widely
                supported position.>>

                I think I agree with this, if I have understood you properly. What I mean is,
                I don't think there is much future for a Griesbach theory that continuously
                posits Luke copying from other written sources, when he seems to depart from
                Matthew. A more viable 2 GH theory takes more seriously Luke's tendency to
                work creatively with material we know from Matthew (and the OT, of course).
                At least, this is my own view (and for this reason, I hope it has more of a
                future than the other).

                (Leonard Maluf)
                > There is also an analogous aspect in this story, with respect to that of
                > 8:19-21, in the sense that Jesus' final statement takes up the terms of
                the
                > word spoken to Jesus: in 8:19-21, Jesus speaks of "my mother and my
                > brothers", because he has been told: "your mother and brothers are
                standing
                > outside...". Here, in Lk 11:27-28, the woman has uttered a macarism, and
                so
                > Jesus responds with a counter-macarism. But apart from these
                > differences-within-analogy, the contents and message of the pericope, and
                in
                > particular of the statement of Jesus, are identical, I think, to that of
                Lk
                > 8:19-21.

                << Your complex analysis of all this goes over my head, but perhaps
                that's because I don't share your initial Griesbachianism.>>

                No, this doesn't really involve my Griesbachianism. I suggest that you reread
                the above shortly after taking your first cup of coffee in the morning. You
                won't even find it so complex then! (I am here suggesting a remedy that works
                for me, and hope that I have not been guilty of illegitimate induction: "ab
                uno disce omnes".)

                << I'd just observe that Lk has changed the original story, whether Mk,
                Mt, GTh, to one that does not exclude his biological family from his
                metaphorical family and this is just what one would expect from the
                author of Luke 1-2 and Acts 1.>>

                This is well worded, and I think I would agree with this, as far as it goes.
                But, as you probably know, R. Brown says more than this. He is convinced that
                Jesus' statement in 8:21, which he renders (in substance): "My mother and
                brothers are they who hear God's word and do it", not only does not exclude
                Jesus' family, but actually identifies them as those who hear God's Word and
                do it. It is this position that I believe is untenable, because of an
                inaccurate translation which ignores the anarthrous meter mou kai adelphoi
                mou, ktl. This makes Luke's text say the opposite from what is said in Matt
                (or Mark), and I do not believe Luke's text DOES have that kind of a
                relationship to either Matt or Mark. On the contrary, much the SAME point is
                made by Jesus in Lk as in Matt or Mk, only (and significantly) without
                excluding Mary and the brothers from Jesus' new family.

                << That's why Mark's argument has a
                fatal flaw, for the "Blessed, rather..." of 11:27-28 is contra-Lukan.>>

                Stevan, you seem to imply here that Lk 11:27-28 makes a substantively
                different point from that made in Lk 8:21. I simply do not see this. In
                substance, the texts are identical in their meaning. Mary is also not
                excluded (and synchronic observations based on Lk 1-2 would suggest that she
                is very much included) among those who merit the higher macarism uttered by
                Jesus in 11:28. The opposition here is between her physical motherhood, and
                that of Israel whom she embodies (11:27b), and a motherhood of a higher plane
                which is not limited to, but includes, her as its prime exemplar (11:28).
                Thus the "rather" (and by the way you should research the exact meaning of
                the unusual Greek word menoun in this phrase) does not introduce a contrast
                to, or exclusion of Mary in what follows, but rather a contrast to a certain
                view of Mary, in her physical fruitfulness and what that represents.

                I don't claim that either this, or my preceding post, PROVES that the author
                of Thomas got this material from Luke. I do however think it very likely that
                Luke is responsible for the form and contents of Lk 11:27-28, and quite
                probable that Thomas 79 is directly or indirectly dependent on this passage.

                Leonard Maluf
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... Since my views in another forum are being characterized here, allow me to clarify what my position is. I had asserted that the Griesbach Hypothesis is the
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 19, 1999
                  At 08:53 PM 4/19/99 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                  >In a message dated 4/19/1999 3:48:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  >miser17@... writes:
                  >(Stevan)
                  ><< If Luke is a rewriting of Matthew with or without any consideration
                  > of GMk then Thomas is dependent on Luke. That is because Thomas
                  > shares too many Luke sayings variants against Matthew and
                  > one will assume that those variants are Lukan redaction of Matthew.
                  > The only alternative would be that Luke is dependent on another
                  > source than Matthew for a lot of sayings that are found in Matthew.
                  > Stephen Carlson seems to think that this position is in fact held
                  > by some Griesbachians and, if so, then Thomas' independence
                  > could still be asserted for the Thomas sayings in Lk against Mt
                  > will be from that other source. I don't see this becoming a widely
                  > supported position.>>
                  >
                  >I think I agree with this, if I have understood you properly. What I mean is,
                  >I don't think there is much future for a Griesbach theory that continuously
                  >posits Luke copying from other written sources, when he seems to depart from
                  >Matthew. A more viable 2 GH theory takes more seriously Luke's tendency to
                  >work creatively with material we know from Matthew (and the OT, of course).
                  >At least, this is my own view (and for this reason, I hope it has more of a
                  >future than the other).

                  Since my views in another forum are being characterized here, allow
                  me to clarify what my position is. I had asserted that the Griesbach
                  Hypothesis is the most compatible of the synoptic source theories for
                  Thomasine independence. Under the GH, Luke is clearly not dependent
                  on Matthew for much of the so-called L material and the Mark-Luke
                  material not in Matthew. This brings up the question of where Luke
                  got this other material. Some noted Griesbach adherents (McNicol et
                  al.) believe that Luke used a non-Matthean tradition.

                  In contrast with hypotheses that posit Mark's priority to Luke, I feel
                  that the GH gives Luke more latitude in creatively working with material
                  from Matthew, the OT, and, yes, oral tradition. To the extent that
                  this oral tradition happens to be similar to Thomas, then I would say
                  that the GH is compatible with Thomasine independence. On the other
                  hand, with Mark's priority to Luke, Luke's faithful to his source and
                  his avoidance of conflation is easier to establish, thereby favoring
                  Thomas's dependence on Luke as the better explanation for Thomas'
                  Lukanness.

                  Stephen Carlson
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 4/19/1999 10:53:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes:
                  Message 8 of 9 , Apr 20, 1999
                    In a message dated 4/19/1999 10:53:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    scarlson@... writes:

                    <<
                    Since my views in another forum are being characterized here, allow
                    me to clarify what my position is. I had asserted that the Griesbach
                    Hypothesis is the most compatible of the synoptic source theories for
                    Thomasine independence. Under the GH, Luke is clearly not dependent
                    on Matthew for much of the so-called L material and the Mark-Luke
                    material not in Matthew. This brings up the question of where Luke
                    got this other material. Some noted Griesbach adherents (McNicol et
                    al.) believe that Luke used a non-Matthean tradition.

                    In contrast with hypotheses that posit Mark's priority to Luke, I feel
                    that the GH gives Luke more latitude in creatively working with material
                    from Matthew, the OT, and, yes, oral tradition. To the extent that
                    this oral tradition happens to be similar to Thomas, then I would say
                    that the GH is compatible with Thomasine independence. On the other
                    hand, with Mark's priority to Luke, Luke's faithful to his source and
                    his avoidance of conflation is easier to establish, thereby favoring
                    Thomas's dependence on Luke as the better explanation for Thomas'
                    Lukanness.>>

                    I'm missing something here. Is there an unstated premise somewhere? Or could
                    you perhaps reword or clarify one more time? Thanks, Steve.

                    Leonard Maluf
                  • Stevan Davies
                    ... Thomas Lukanness means that Thomas is often (but by no means always) closer to Lk than to Mt in the sayings material shared with Mt. Luke s Thomasness
                    Message 9 of 9 , Apr 20, 1999
                      Leonard wrote:
                      > In contrast with hypotheses that posit Mark's priority to Luke, I feel
                      > that the GH gives Luke more latitude in creatively working with material
                      > from Matthew, the OT, and, yes, oral tradition. To the extent that
                      > this oral tradition happens to be similar to Thomas, then I would say
                      > that the GH is compatible with Thomasine independence. On the other
                      > hand, with Mark's priority to Luke, Luke's faithful to his source and
                      > his avoidance of conflation is easier to establish, thereby favoring
                      > Thomas's dependence on Luke as the better explanation for Thomas'
                      > Lukanness.>>
                      >
                      > I'm missing something here. Is there an unstated premise somewhere? Or could
                      > you perhaps reword or clarify one more time?

                      Thomas' Lukanness means that Thomas is often (but by no means
                      always) closer to Lk than to Mt in the sayings material shared with Mt.

                      Luke's Thomasness means that Luke is often (but by no means
                      always) closer to Th than to Mt in the sayings material shared with
                      Mt. (We must not let phraseology beg the question for us).

                      Assuming the Q hypothesis, this simply supports the view of most
                      Q scholars that Lk's Q material is somewhat less redacted than
                      Mt's. Indeed, many Q scholars will agree that the independent Thomas
                      enables us to make judgements as to whether Mt or Lk changed Q.

                      It is evidently possible to maintain that Lk used Mt and,
                      nevertheless, had at least one other source duplicating much of
                      the Mt sayings material, a source which Lk often preferred to the
                      Mt. source. If so, then the Thomasness of Luke (= Lukaness of Thomas)
                      accords with Luke's use of a sayings list akin to Thomas (and akin
                      to Q) thus allowing for an independent Thomas.

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