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

Re: Thomas 79 // Luke 11.27-28

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.

        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

        Aseneth Home Page
        Recommended New Testament Web Resources
        Mark Without Q
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.