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

Re: Thomas 79 // Luke 11.27-28

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Many thanks to Steve for his constructive and sharp comments on the draft of the article, which will be a better one for that critique. I will combine both
    Message 1 of 7 , May 5, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Many thanks to Steve for his constructive and sharp comments on the draft of
      the article, which will be a better one for that critique. I will combine both
      parts of Steve's carefully articulated response and it will be necessary to
      reproduce much of it wholesale, with apologies for the rather lengthy message.
      This message is cross-posted to Synoptic-L and GThomas with apologies for the
      lengthy delay between Steve's message and this, inevitable with the kind of
      time constraints I am currently working under.

      On 18 Apr 99 at 17:59, Stevan Davies wrote:

      > 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 incline
      > towards literary dependence of some kind." (But of course since
      > we already know there was literary dependence there, the analogy
      > begs the question here).

      The point in brackets is a good one, though of course we would not think that
      there was literary dependence there if it were not for the fact that we have
      close agreement of precisely this kind between the Synoptics.

      > 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.

      Again, this is a good point and it is relevant to what I was saying on
      Synoptic-L recently about excessive dependence on redaction-criticism.
      Sometimes Luke will indeed have found something in his source materials that he
      will have thought to be just right and thoroughly Lukan. We all do this all
      the time. "I couldn't have said it better myself" is a cliche we often use to express the
      fact that sometimes another will express our own thoughts more coherently than
      we are able. Nevertheless, we still have to say when we see two clear
      parallels that show signs of literary dependence: which way is the dependence
      most likely to go? Where a text is pervasively Lukan and far less clearly
      Thomasine, our natural presumption will of course be to say that Luke is likely
      to be dependent on Thomas.
      >
      > 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.

      One of the things that helps us in our task of working out what is clearly
      "Lukan" is the comparison with the other Synoptics, especially Mark. If we
      see Luke redacting Mark in certain ways and then see the same features in L,
      our natural presumption will be that the L feature in question is likely to be
      from Luke's hand. In other words, an accumulation of repeated, pervasively
      Lucan features are likely -- in a given instance -- to be due to Luke's hand.

      I will continue to try to keep Steve's post in tact in what follows,
      interjecting my comments along the way.
      >
      > (a) regarding foil questions and comments from anonymous individuals

      A key point that Steve does not consider is the presence of TIS (a certain one,
      someone). This specific feature is strikingly Lukan: the five instances listed
      are the only occasions in the synoptic tradition to feature a foil question
      from an anonymous individual described as TIS. This is a sign of Luke's hand.
      >
      > 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.

      Actually the IQP reconstruct with TIS at Q 9.57, probably for the kind of
      reason you mention, a good example of how easy it is to miss distinctively
      Lukan terminology when it is "general", like TIS, in order to pick up on the
      more obviously Matthean "scribe". This is what Goulder calls embarras de
      richesses in the reconstruction of Q -- equally Lukan / equally Matthean
      features turning up in their respective reworkings of Q.
      >
      > 2. At 12:13 "one of the crowd said to him"// GTh 72 where we find
      > "a man said to him."

      This is the other example of an anonymous interlocutor in Thomas and, as in
      the saying in question, it is parallel with Luke. There is one small extra
      hint that Thomas might be following Luke in Thom. 72 // Luke 12.13-15. Jesus
      replies to the man ANQRWPE (Luke 12.14), a form of address found on three
      other occasions in Luke and never elsewhere in the Gospels: 5.20, 22.58 and
      22.60 (all redactional additions to Mark). Thomas has W PRWME in parallel,
      found elsewhere only at Thom. 61.
      >
      > 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.

      This shifts the goalposts. 13.23 is an anonymous interlocutor, introduced by
      TIS, asking a foil question, as in the passage under discussion. The fact
      that there is no "crowd" here is not relevant to the case for the Lukan
      character of anonymous interlocutors, introduced by TIS, asking foil questions
      / making foil comments.
      >
      > 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.

      The same comments made above are relevant 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..."

      There is of course a little similarity here, but the crucial factors are
      missing: (1) TIS; (2) this is not a foil question / comment introducing
      teaching.
      >
      > 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.

      I have looked at this carefully and I believe that I am right in saying that
      foil questions or comments from individual interlocutors framed with TIS are
      unique to Luke in the Synoptic tradition.
      >
      > As Mark G. points out, Thomas has its anonymous interlocutors...
      > e.g. 91, 99, 100, 104.

      Plural.
      >
      > 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.]

      This attempt to reduce the impact that the evidence makes is not persuasive
      partly for reasons given above in relation to individual verses. But further,
      evidence of a 0/0/5 (occurrences in Matthew / Mark / Luke) feature should not
      be so lightly dismissed. Note here that there is some troubling movement away
      from the one thing that everyone agrees we need in order to demonstrate
      Thomasine knowledge of Luke: that Thomas should share with Luke some of the
      latter's distinctive, redactional features. It won't do to say that Luke's
      distinctive features are not distinctive because they are shared in a given
      instance with Thomas. That is the very thing that is under discussion. If
      every feature is held to be less distinctive because of a given parallel under
      discussion in Thomas, then one is placed in a no-win situation in which one
      begins to suspect that no evidence, however persuasive, will be allowed to
      count in favour of Thomasine knowledge of Luke.
      >
      > 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."

      Once more, the introduction of the crowd here is not relevant since it is not
      an element in the argument here.
      >
      > Where does this leave us?
      >
      > Luke has 2 anonymous interlocutors uniquely
      > Shares 2 with Thomas
      > Shares 1 with Matthew (Q)
      > Shares others with Mark

      On the sharing with Thomas, see above. He does not share any with Mark; again
      see above. For Q theorists, he may or may not have taken over one from Q
      9.57; but the pervasively Lukan nature of the feature will incline us not to
      make that judgement. For Q sceptics, Luke 9.57 is his characteristic
      redactional change to Matthew. What one therefore needs to note here is the
      absence of a single clear counter-example. In other words, as has been made
      clear already, this feature is a peculiarly Lukan one within the Synoptic
      tradition and only occurs in Thomas on two occasions, closely parallel to
      Luke.
      >
      > Thomas also has at least four "they said/asked" anonymous
      > interlocutors.

      Again, not relevant because these are not the thing that is strikingly Lukan.
      >
      > 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.

      For the reasons stated above, I am not convinced that this reduces the impact
      of the evidence. The case is, of course, also a cumulative one. This feature
      on its own is not enough to make the case but alongside the other features it
      plays a key part in establishing Thomasine knowledge of Luke.
      >
      > ===================
      > (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.

      Agreed -- the crowd is not distinctive of Luke (and of course I do not claim
      that it is in the article). The mention of the crowd is more striking because
      of its anomalous nature in Thomas.

      <snip>

      > 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.

      It is indeed difficult to pin down genuinely anomalous features in Thomas, a
      fact that makes the kind of argument I am attempting all the more difficult. I
      think it a good point that we have in Thomas 78 "you" (plural) but we can
      hardly conclude from that that a "crowd" is implied. The fact remains that the
      inadvertent mention of a "crowd" in Thomas that is elsewhere entirely absent is
      precisely the kind of thing that might indicate dependence on Luke.

      I am not sure that the matter of "narrative" here in Thomas solves the problem.
      Even if it is the case that we have what one might call some kind of narrative
      progression (from saying 78 to 79), it is not clear to me that mention of a
      "crowd" becomes inevitable. For where crowds are a key element in the whole
      Synoptic portrait, they can hardly be a natural feature in a text that stresses
      the communication of secret sayings.

      <snip>

      > (c) Gynaecology [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.

      Well we have to ask whether we have anything with which we can compare Luke.
      And indeed we have something -- Matthew's Birth Narrative in which he manages
      to tell a story about the birth of Jesus without any mention of wombs or
      breasts.

      The phrase "from birth" provides a useful analogy. The question when one is
      looking at a writer's use of language is often focused on the words s/he
      chooses to express a concept that others would express in a different way.
      Where Steve might say "from birth", Luke might say "from the womb", the latter
      witnessing to a tendency to use gynaecological terminology.

      > Mark wrote;
      >
      > "And mastoi/ (breasts) occurs only in Luke
      > among the (canonical) Gospels, here and at 23.29."
      >
      > Both of which appear in Thomas 79. It appears strikingly illogical
      > to say X appears in text Y and Z and so X is a trait of Y and thus
      > Z is dependent on Y. But if that's not the implication here, then
      > the sentence is without significance for the argument. It can
      > be said with equal validity that since "breasts" appear only
      > in Thomas 79 in the synoptic tradition, Luke therefore depends
      > on Thomas.

      Here we have the atomisation of the argument. Of course the reference to
      breasts on their own are not a clear indicator, but alongside other signs of
      interest in gynaecological detail, they are worthy of note.

      On my comments on the co-text in 1.41-44, Steve writes (some omitted):

      > Mark assumes, along
      > with virtually all scholars, that Luke crafted this macarism and
      > did so at the beginning of the process of writing the gospel.
      > It must be observed that Luke attributes "Blessed are you among
      > women," to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... it is not just
      > Elizabeth's own flattering comment. Luke's high Mariology (vs.
      > the other NT texts) is carried through in his deletion of Mark 3:21,
      > 3:33-34, 6:1-6, and his inclusion of Mary in the group who
      > will experience Pentecost: Acts 1:14
      > "All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer,
      > together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and
      > with his brothers."
      > In Mark 3:31-35 the implication is clear that his natural family
      > is excluded from the statement made about his redefined
      > family: "whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister,
      > and mother." Luke removes this implication in 8:19-21. We have,
      > then a consistent bias in favor of the woman of whom the
      > Spirit through Elizabeth said: "Blessed art thou among women."

      Mark 3.33-35 is indeed re-written by Luke to lessen the anti-Mary feeling. In
      fact the resulting pericope, Luke 8.19-21, looks very much like the pericope
      Luke 11.27-28 under discussion, particularly in Luke's characteristic
      adjustment "those hearing the word of God and doing / keeping it". In other
      words, I agree with the above.

      On this theme, Steve writes:

      > Well, maybe, but it's not the major theme of chapter 11. Indeed,
      > that chapter has almost nothing to do with the theme. 11:27-28
      > is completely non-integrated with the other material nearby,
      > the preceeding having to do with unclean spirits and their habits,
      > the following being a vicious attack on Jesus' generation.
      >
      > I invite readers to review Luke 11 for themselves and judge if
      > there is such an emphasis there, and to judge if
      > Luke's 11:27-28 is other than an unanticipated insertion.

      As Steve was saying earlier in respect to Thomas, one should be wary of paying
      attention to arbitrary chapter divisions. Why limit discussion of context to
      Luke 11? The theme of hearing the word of God and doing it is indeed a key one
      in the Central Section and the scene is most clearly set in Chapter 10 with
      material like "He who hears you hears me" (v. 17) and the whole Mary and Martha
      story ("sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching"). There is always
      another side of the coin for Luke: the question of rejection of the word of God
      and this is one of the other key themes in the Central Section.
      >
      > [It might be said that Luke has placed it there as a substitute
      > for the repudiation of the family event that he found in Mark,
      > which event he repaired and placed elsewhere. If so, and it's
      > not clearly so, I don't see where that gets us.]

      I think that the substitute idea is a good one, though to make sense of it we
      need Markan Priority without Q. Since Luke has already used Mark's Mothers and
      Brothers section in 8.19-21, when he comes across the same section just after
      Matt. 12.43-45 // Luke 11.24-26, he composes a substitute version, viz.
      11.27-28. I should add that this is Goulder's point and not mine.
      >
      > I don't think Mark's argument against contradiction will fly. Either
      > Elizabeth has got it right, or not. Jesus' answer in Luke, to
      > blessings upon his mother is, "Blessed RATHER are those...."
      > which DENIES blessings are due to his mother.

      Here we come back to the question of the interpretation of MENOUN in Luke. I
      think that perhaps I was too defensive about this in the article. It is quite
      legitimate to take this not necessarily as "Blessed, on the contrary, are those
      . . ." but as "Yes indeed, and blessed are . . ." I think that this is the way
      that it is taken by Risto Uro in an article in the recent _Thomas at the
      Crossroads_ but I do not have the book to hand. Consider these uses in the NT
      that make the point clearly:

      Rom 10.18: "But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed (MENOUNGE) they have; for
      'Their voice has gone out to all the earth . . .'"

      Phil. 3.8: "Indeed (MENOUNGE) I count everything as loss because of the
      surpassing worth of knowing Jesus . . ."

      But I have put a question to b-greek to check that I am not out on a limb on
      this one; and I will try to check the Uro book again.
      >
      > Here, I'm afraid, Mark is forced into special-pleading. There surely
      > is no contradiction between the macarism of the Holy Spirit
      > through Elizabeth and the idea of hearing and doing the word
      > of God. It is not as if you must choose between the Blessed
      > Mother and God's Word in Luke's view of things. But indeed the
      > saying says exactly that. It doesn't fit. Of course, according to
      > "Mark Goodacre's reading of Luke" it does fit. But Mark's reading
      > is certainly idiosyncratic (one suspects few Catholic exegetes
      > will immediately find it compelling) and hardly the stuff of which
      > redaction critical arguments can be constructed.

      Well I was attempting a narrative-critical argument to supplement the other
      redaction-critical ones, not being a fan of seeing the different methods in
      isolation from one another. Taking MENOUN as "Indeed; more than that" or
      similar would also deal with this criticism.

      <snip>

      > I'd say the notion that one should "hear the word of God and do it"
      > would be a cliche of Judaism. The conclusion of the
      > Sermon on the Mount 7:24 uses the cliche (although in terms re:
      > Jesus' teachings). Perhaps the best extended example of
      > the idea of hear and obey in the NT is in James 1:22-25,
      > which is not by virtue of the fact a demonstrably Lukan construction.
      > "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves.
      > Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what
      > it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at
      > himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who
      > looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do
      > this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it-- he will be blessed in
      > what he does."

      Indeed; but the fact that this is something of a cliche does not make it any
      the less Lucan in the Synoptic tradition. What we need to ask about is: (1)
      what cliches are preferred by individual synoptic writers? and (2) is there
      anything distinctively Lukan about the specific wording. The answer to (1) is
      that this cliche, if it is one, is beloved of Luke and not used at all by the
      other synoptists -- see the article. (2) The specific wording is
      characteristically Lukan and can be paralleled in agreed redactional reworkings
      of Mark. This is the strongest element in the case in my opinion.

      <snip>

      > Luke does indeed alter Mark 3:35 to accord with 11:28//Th79.
      > Mark G's claim that 11:28 is in accord with Luke's views of
      > obedience is absolutely correct and Luke's alteration of Mk
      > proves this. But it is not diamond hard reasoning to say that the
      > use of a phrase redactionally in one place proves that the phrase is
      > redactional in another place. Assuming, for example, that there
      > is a Matthean redactional use of "woe unto you pharisees" it
      > does not mean that Matthew did not find "woe unto you pharisees"
      > in traditional material. More likely Matthew picked up the phrase
      > from his traditional material and then made additional use of it.
      > So did Luke in the instance under discussion pick up a phrase
      > pleasing to him and make (only once) use of it.

      Indeed (MENOUN!) but phrase comes several times redactionally and many times
      overall in Luke-Acts. This is not the kind of evidence that is easily diluted
      -- it is not just "the use of a phrase redactionally in one place". If "Woe
      unto you Pharisees" was as common and as clearly redactionally inserted into
      Markan contexts in Matthew, I would say that this would have a similar claim to
      pervasive Matthean-ness.
      >
      > Thus we have in Luke 11:27-28 a motif that is unquestionably
      > Luke-pleasing. It's in accord with "hear the word of the Lord"
      > as ubiquitously in the prophets, and with hear-and-obey that
      > is an essence of Judaism and a motif found in many Christian
      > texts. It may well fit better in Luke than in Thomas even though
      > what does or doesn't fit in Thomas is a methodologically
      > bizarre question.

      Agreed that this is a difficulty, but it is one that should be attempted
      nevertheless as I do in the draft. Otherwise there will be something wanting
      in the argument. *In so far as we can say what is Thomasine*, the features
      in Thom. 79a are anomalous.
      >
      > What then to conclude?
      > Did Luke make up 11:27-28 from his own imagination? Mark G
      > isn't claiming this, I don't think. He's pretty ambiguous on the
      > point. Did Luke make up a repudiation of Jesus' mother's blessedness
      > and put it into a sequence where it has no coherent role? I say no.

      You rightly pick up on the ambiguity. Personally I think it highly likely that
      Luke did compose this on the basis of the similar Luke 8.19-21 and utilising
      pervasively Lukan themes and language. However I have been careful not to bind
      this into my argument because I do not think it is essential to it. Luke
      might have taken over some version of the saying from oral tradition,
      superimposing the Lukan themes and language in his re-writing of it; so I would
      not want to insist on Lukan composition, likely though it seems. What is
      important here is that Thomas shares the saying in its current Lukan form.
      >
      > Did Luke take X the unknown from tradition and revise it into
      > 11:27-28? I guess this is Mark's position. But by doing what to
      > it? Adding an anonymous interlocutor instead of.... what?
      > Adding "hear the word of God and keep it" instead of... what?
      >
      > We don't have a clue, of course. And that's where I began with this
      > analysis. We can't do redaction criticism of a unique saying.

      I don't know what might have been in an earlier version of the saying if one
      existed (which I personally doubt). Would we have been able to guess the
      original Markan version of Luke 8.19-21 if we had not had Mark 3.31-35? I
      doubt it, but that fact does not make Luke 8.21 R any less Lukan nor does it
      make the source in Mark any less Markan. And I think we can do redaction
      criticism on unique sayings. Didn't redaction-criticism all begin with Marxsen
      on Mark? And has not redaction-criticism been practised more on Mark than on
      other Gospels?
      >
      > In my estimation two things prove Luke did not invent this
      > saying. First, its failure to have any literary connection with
      > its surroundings in chapter 11 indicates that it came to Luke
      > from tradition and he stuck it where he did... rather than he
      > created it to fill a literary purpose in the composition of that
      > sequence. Second, it flatly contradicts the Holy Spirit's
      > blessing through Elizabeth which blessing is conceded to be
      > itself a Lukan construction.

      I hope that I have addressed these questions a little more carefully in my
      responses in this Email. I will attempt to re-write the article with these
      things in view.
      >
      > Is an anonymous interlocutor specifically Lukan over Thomas?
      > No. Are crowds Lukan rather than a feature of narrative gospels
      > generally? No. Is "womb" Lukan per se? No. Breasts? No.
      > The idea of "hear-and-obey the word of the Lord?" No. The
      > specific phraseology "hear the word of God and keep it"?
      > Perhaps. It's twice in Luke, once in Thomas and that's two times
      > as many. Luke liked it enough to revise Mark with it. And Luke
      > must have liked 11:27-28 for some reason or other... surely he
      > didn't like it simply because it repudiated the blessing on Mary.

      The difficulty with this is that it atomises the argument, as outlined
      previously. But further, it drastically understates the argument from "hearing
      the word of God and obeying it".

      Thanks again for the stimulation. I am indeed blessed to have such a
      sharp and cogent critic.

      Mark
      --------------------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      Aseneth Home Page
      Recommended New Testament Web Resources
      Mark Without Q
    • Jim Deardorff
      There s a tiny piece of Mark s response to Stevan I d like to make a short comment on: On May 5 Mark Goodacre wrote: ... and ... I m glad that Mark made us
      Message 2 of 7 , May 5, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        There's a tiny piece of Mark's response to Stevan I'd like to make a short
        comment on:

        On May 5 Mark Goodacre wrote:
        Stevan had written:

        >> It might be said that Luke has placed it [Lk 11:27-28] there as a substitute
        >> for the repudiation of the family event that he found in Mark,
        >> which event he repaired and placed elsewhere. If so, and it's
        >> not clearly so, I don't see where that gets us.

        >I think that the substitute idea is a good one, though to make sense of it we
        >need Markan Priority without Q. Since Luke has already used Mark's Mothers
        and
        >Brothers section in 8.19-21, when he comes across the same section just after
        >Matt. 12.43-45 // Luke 11.24-26, he composes a substitute version, viz.
        >11.27-28. I should add that this is Goulder's point and not mine.

        I'm glad that Mark made us aware of Goulder's argument here, as I think it
        is an excellent one, very plausible. With this argument, however, we need
        only that Luke be dependent upon both Mark and Matthew (no Q), without
        needing to specify whether Mark has priority over Matthew or not.

        Jim Deardorff
        Corvallis, Oregon
        E-mail: deardorj@...
        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
      • Mark Goodacre
        Further on MENOUN: it seems that the Yes, but rather interpretation will run for Luke 11.28 and that this is the preferred translation of Fitzmyer. There
        Message 3 of 7 , May 6, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Further on MENOUN: it seems that the "Yes, but rather" interpretation will run
          for Luke 11.28 and that this is the preferred translation of Fitzmyer. There
          have been some useful contributions on this on b-greek (for which see:
          http://franklin.oit.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=b-greek).

          I have now looked at the Risto Uro essay that I referred to yesterday and
          quote:

          "This particle is probably to be understood in the corrective sense ("yes, but
          rather") and therefore has the effect of softening the contrast between
          maternal honour and true discipleship. In Thomas, biological motherhood is
          clearly contrasted with discipleship." ("Is Thomas An Encratite Gospel",
          Chapter 6 in Risto Uro (ed.), _Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel
          of Thomas_ (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
          1998), p. 148).

          Uro also comments on the relationship under discussion as follows:

          "The words 'hear the word of God and keep it' (cf. Luke 8.21) have a Lukan
          flavour. The similar expression in Thomas may therefore reveal a Lukan
          redaction. The latter suggestion does not, however, solve the question of a
          possibly independent tradition history behind the Thomasine saying, since the
          influence of the Lukan redaction may have occurred after teh two units were
          joined." (ibid.; Uro refers to Patterson for the independence of GThom. 79 from
          the Lukan redaction and to Schrage for the opposite view).

          Mark
          --------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          Aseneth Home Page
          Recommended New Testament Web Resources
          Mark Without Q
        • Stevan Davies
          I ve found this long-lasting discussion quite stimulating and so I hope Mark will be willing to continue on a bit. ... You write at considerable length
          Message 4 of 7 , May 10, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            I've found this long-lasting discussion quite stimulating and so I
            hope Mark will be willing to continue on a bit.

            Mark Goodacre:

            > > (a) regarding foil questions and comments from anonymous individuals
            >
            > A key point that Steve does not consider is the presence of TIS (a certain one,
            > someone). This specific feature is strikingly Lukan: the five instances listed
            > are the only occasions in the synoptic tradition to feature a foil question
            > from an anonymous individual described as TIS. This is a sign of Luke's hand.

            You write at considerable length discussing this matter and
            dismissing my comments on the subject as not focusing on the
            precise point you are making (which I thought, evidently mistakenly)
            had to do with people speaking from crowds.

            > > 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.
            >
            > This shifts the goalposts. 13.23 is an anonymous interlocutor, introduced by
            > TIS, asking a foil question, as in the passage under discussion. The fact
            > that there is no "crowd" here is not relevant to the case for the Lukan
            > character of anonymous interlocutors, introduced by TIS, asking foil questions
            > / making foil comments.

            It seems to come down to TIS. Very well. So I look at the Thomas
            passage and I simply cannot find a TIS anywhere. Since the argument
            is that TIS is characteristically Lukan, yet Thomas doesn't have TIS
            in 79 (or 72, or anywhere?) I just don't follow. Or is there a TIS
            that I fail to recognize in Thomas 79? This is entirely possible as
            my philological competencies are slim.

            But if there isn't one, surely the
            conclusion of your own argument is that this characteristically Lukan
            feature is conspicuously lacking in Thomas and so Thomas' dependence
            on Luke is questionable at best.

            > > 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.]
            >
            > This attempt to reduce the impact that the evidence makes is not persuasive
            > partly for reasons given above in relation to individual verses. But further,
            > evidence of a 0/0/5 (occurrences in Matthew / Mark / Luke) feature should not
            > be so lightly dismissed. Note here that there is some troubling movement away
            > from the one thing that everyone agrees we need in order to demonstrate
            > Thomasine knowledge of Luke: that Thomas should share with Luke some of the
            > latter's distinctive, redactional features. It won't do to say that Luke's
            > distinctive features are not distinctive because they are shared in a given
            > instance with Thomas. That is the very thing that is under discussion. If
            > every feature is held to be less distinctive because of a given parallel under
            > discussion in Thomas, then one is placed in a no-win situation in which one
            > begins to suspect that no evidence, however persuasive, will be allowed to
            > count in favour of Thomasine knowledge of Luke.

            Not so fast. Luke 12:13-14 // Thomas 72 is an independent case. If it
            otherwise shows evidence of Luke's distinctive features, then your argument
            will work. But it doesn't because, except for the rather dissimilar "one of
            the crowd said to him" (Lk) and "a man said to him," (Th) the
            sayings are really very different throughout. To say that this is
            definitively Lukan because of that slight and inexact overlap begs
            the question. I can't locate a TIS in Thomas here either and, again,
            if TIS is the distinctive Lukanism you focus on, and it is absent in
            Thomas 72 and 79, what's your point?

            > Actually the IQP reconstruct with TIS at Q 9.57, probably for the kind of
            > reason you mention, a good example of how easy it is to miss distinctively
            > Lukan terminology

            But if the IQP has judged correctly, then TIS is not distinctively
            Lukan terminology.

            If there are 4 cases in Luke, 1 in Q, 1 in Thomas, then to say
            therefore the fifth instance in Luke means that the second instance
            in Thomas is clearly Luke-redactional must be methodologically
            unsound. Won't you have to show that the other instance in Thomas
            is Luke-redactional for your thesis to hold?

            > I am not sure that the matter of "narrative" here in Thomas solves the problem.
            > Even if it is the case that we have what one might call some kind of narrative
            > progression (from saying 78 to 79), it is not clear to me that mention of a
            > "crowd" becomes inevitable. For where crowds are a key element in the whole
            > Synoptic portrait, they can hardly be a natural feature in a text that stresses
            > the communication of secret sayings.

            I haven't the foggiest notion why Thomas' incipit mentions "secret"
            sayings. Much of the text transmits Jesus-sayings that surely were
            known to anybody on earth with any interest in Jesus-sayings.

            > > I don't think Mark's argument against contradiction will fly. Either
            > > Elizabeth has got it right, or not. Jesus' answer in Luke, to
            > > blessings upon his mother is, "Blessed RATHER are those...."
            > > which DENIES blessings are due to his mother.
            >
            > Here we come back to the question of the interpretation of MENOUN in Luke. I
            > think that perhaps I was too defensive about this in the article. It is quite
            > legitimate to take this not necessarily as "Blessed, on the contrary, are those
            > . . ." but as "Yes indeed, and blessed are . . ."

            Oh dear. Let me see. We have RSV, NRSV, KJ, NIV with "rather" and
            New English with the even stronger, "No,...." I don't think an
            argument that goes "well, I will translate it differently so that it
            fits my case" is very persuasive. Do you have ANY NT translation by
            anybody else that runs "Yes indeed,...."?

            > Indeed; but the fact that this is something of a cliche does not make it any
            > the less Lucan in the Synoptic tradition. What we need to ask about is: (1)
            > what cliches are preferred by individual synoptic writers? and (2) is there
            > anything distinctively Lukan about the specific wording. The answer to (1) is
            > that this cliche, if it is one, is beloved of Luke and not used at all by the
            > other synoptists -- see the article. (2) The specific wording is
            > characteristically Lukan and can be paralleled in agreed redactional reworkings
            > of Mark. This is the strongest element in the case in my opinion.

            reworkings? I know of one. Are there more than one?

            > > In my estimation two things prove Luke did not invent this
            > > saying. First, its failure to have any literary connection with
            > > its surroundings in chapter 11 indicates that it came to Luke
            > > from tradition and he stuck it where he did... rather than he
            > > created it to fill a literary purpose in the composition of that
            > > sequence. Second, it flatly contradicts the Holy Spirit's
            > > blessing through Elizabeth which blessing is conceded to be
            > > itself a Lukan construction.
            >
            > I hope that I have addressed these questions a little more carefully in my
            > responses in this Email.

            You have addressed the second, certainly. But I still do not
            think you have addressed the first by asserting that it fits the
            context of chapter 10 etc.. It sure doesn't make sense to me
            in the context of 11:24-32. Generally, when an author invents a
            saying, he does so in order to further the argument made
            just prior, or introduce the argument to come. For example,
            Luke adds 11:24-26 at an entirely appropriate place, after other
            demon material. Then 11:27 follows, having zero to do with
            11:24-26. After 11:28 we suddenly hear Jesus complaining about
            this generation asking for a sign which, if it relates to anything at
            all, must relate to 11:27-28... which, of course, it doesn't. So
            between two somewhat coherent units (demons) (wicked generation)
            we have the passage in question... one said to be invented by
            Luke himself. But for what contextual purpose? I think the anomalous
            character of the saying in its context indicates that Luke has taken
            it from previous tradition and just stuck it in... Evangelists seem
            to do that sort of thing with traditional material. Evangelists do
            not seem to invent anomalous things and stick them into places
            where they don't fit.... and if you take 11:27-28 out the whole
            thing flows much more smoothly.

            Steve
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... As I discussed in the related thread on B-Greek, the King James (Authorized) version has Yea rather. To argue that the KJV meant on the contrary is to
            Message 5 of 7 , May 10, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              At 03:16 PM 5/10/99 -0500, Stevan Davies wrote:
              >Mark Goodacre:
              >> Here we come back to the question of the interpretation of MENOUN in Luke. I
              >> think that perhaps I was too defensive about this in the article. It is quite
              >> legitimate to take this not necessarily as "Blessed, on the contrary, are those
              >> . . ." but as "Yes indeed, and blessed are . . ."
              >
              >Oh dear. Let me see. We have RSV, NRSV, KJ, NIV with "rather" and
              >New English with the even stronger, "No,...." I don't think an
              >argument that goes "well, I will translate it differently so that it
              >fits my case" is very persuasive. Do you have ANY NT translation by
              >anybody else that runs "Yes indeed,...."?

              As I discussed in the related thread on B-Greek, the King James
              (Authorized) version has "Yea rather." To argue that the KJV
              meant "on the contrary" is to miss the word "Yea."

              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
            • Mark Goodacre
              ... I reckon that we should regard the indefinite article (OU) in OUC2IME ( a woman ) as equivalent to Luke s indefinite pronoun in TIS GUNH ( a certain
              Message 6 of 7 , May 18, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                On 10 May 99 at 15:16, Stevan Davies wrote:

                > It seems to come down to TIS. Very well. So I look at the Thomas
                > passage and I simply cannot find a TIS anywhere. Since the argument
                > is that TIS is characteristically Lukan, yet Thomas doesn't have TIS
                > in 79 (or 72, or anywhere?) I just don't follow. Or is there a TIS
                > that I fail to recognize in Thomas 79?

                I reckon that we should regard the indefinite article (OU) in OUC2IME
                ("a woman") as equivalent to Luke's indefinite pronoun in TIS GUNH ("a certain
                woman"). Cf. Greeven's re-translation of Thomas 79 into Greek, which begins
                EIPEN AUTWi TIS GUNH EK TOU OXLOU. This is very close to Luke 11.27.
                Likewise also Bethge's retranslation -- identical to Greeven's except that we
                have GUNH TIS rather than TIS GUNH. I think that this is likely to be correct
                and I note that similar moves from TIS to OU occur in Coptic versions of the NT
                (perhaps Mike would like to look this up on his new CD?)

                > Not so fast. Luke 12:13-14 // Thomas 72 is an independent case. If it
                > otherwise shows evidence of Luke's distinctive features, then your argument
                > will work. But it doesn't because, except for the rather dissimilar "one of
                > the crowd said to him" (Lk) and "a man said to him," (Th) the sayings are
                > really very different throughout. To say that this is definitively Lukan
                > because of that slight and inexact overlap begs the question. I can't locate a
                > TIS in Thomas here either and, again, if TIS is the distinctive Lukanism you
                > focus on, and it is absent in Thomas 72 and 79, what's your point?

                This has the same feature: TIS in Luke 12.13 and OU . . . in Thom. 72.
                There is another hint that Thomas might be following Luke in Thom. 72 // Luke
                12.13-15. Jesus replies to the man ANQRWPE (Man!, Luke 12.14), a form of
                address found on three other occasions in Luke and never elsewhere in the
                Gospels: 5.20, 22.58 and 22.60 (all redactional additions to Mark). Thomas has
                W PRWME in parallel, found in elsewhere only at Thom. 61. But this is a hint
                rather than a clear indicator.

                > > Actually the IQP reconstruct with TIS at Q 9.57, probably for the kind of
                > > reason you mention, a good example of how easy it is to miss distinctively
                > > Lukan terminology
                >
                > But if the IQP has judged correctly, then TIS is not distinctively
                > Lukan terminology.
                >
                > If there are 4 cases in Luke, 1 in Q, 1 in Thomas, then to say
                > therefore the fifth instance in Luke means that the second instance
                > in Thomas is clearly Luke-redactional must be methodologically
                > unsound. Won't you have to show that the other instance in Thomas
                > is Luke-redactional for your thesis to hold?

                I think that it is a cumulative argument. To find so many Lukan features is so
                short a piece is really too striking. And, though I hesitate to say it, the
                IQP is not entirely infallilble!

                > Oh dear. Let me see. We have RSV, NRSV, KJ, NIV with "rather" and
                > New English with the even stronger, "No,...." I don't think an
                > argument that goes "well, I will translate it differently so that it
                > fits my case" is very persuasive. Do you have ANY NT translation by
                > anybody else that runs "Yes indeed,...."?

                On this, see Stephen Carlson's response.

                > > Indeed; but the fact that this is something of a cliche does not make it any
                > > the less Lucan in the Synoptic tradition. What we need to ask about is: (1)
                > > what cliches are preferred by individual synoptic writers? and (2) is there
                > > anything distinctively Lukan about the specific wording. The answer to (1) is
                > > that this cliche, if it is one, is beloved of Luke and not used at all by the
                > > other synoptists -- see the article. (2) The specific wording is
                > > characteristically Lukan and can be paralleled in agreed redactional reworkings
                > > of Mark. This is the strongest element in the case in my opinion.
                >
                > reworkings? I know of one. Are there more than one?

                5.1 has "hear the word of God" (AKOUEIN TON LOGON TOU QEOU). See too the way
                that Luke writes 8.11-12. And then we have the many occurrences of the theme
                of hearing + keeping / doing in Acts.

                > You have addressed the second, certainly. But I still do not
                > think you have addressed the first by asserting that it fits the
                > context of chapter 10 etc.. It sure doesn't make sense to me
                > in the context of 11:24-32. Generally, when an author invents a
                > saying, he does so in order to further the argument made
                > just prior, or introduce the argument to come. For example,
                > Luke adds 11:24-26 at an entirely appropriate place, after other
                > demon material. Then 11:27 follows, having zero to do with
                > 11:24-26. After 11:28 we suddenly hear Jesus complaining about
                > this generation asking for a sign which, if it relates to anything at
                > all, must relate to 11:27-28... which, of course, it doesn't. So
                > between two somewhat coherent units (demons) (wicked generation)
                > we have the passage in question... one said to be invented by
                > Luke himself. But for what contextual purpose? I think the anomalous
                > character of the saying in its context indicates that Luke has taken
                > it from previous tradition and just stuck it in... Evangelists seem
                > to do that sort of thing with traditional material. Evangelists do
                > not seem to invent anomalous things and stick them into places
                > where they don't fit.... and if you take 11:27-28 out the whole
                > thing flows much more smoothly.

                Luke is influenced by the fact that the similar Mothers and Brothers pericope
                comes here in Matthew, having already used the original Markan story in a
                Markan block of material earlier on (Luke 8). But in terms of the construction
                of the narrative, Luke regularly has little interrupting episodes that attempt
                to divert the readers' and crowd's attention in the Central Section. Jesus
                deals with them by re-iterating key themes, like hearing and doing the word,
                and then progressing with the narrative, picking up the sequence where he has
                just left off. It is a narrative technique I rather like.

                I suspect that there is not a great deal more that can be said about this one.
                If so, thanks again for your help in formulating my ideas and thanks for such a
                sharp critique.

                Mark
                --------------------------------------
                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                Aseneth Home Page
                Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                Mark Without Q
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.