Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:52:16 -0400 (EDT) From: William E. Arnal To: Stevan Davies Cc: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Subject: Re: Original GThomas On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Stevan Davies wrote: > I look through GTh seeking redactions. I find some in 4, but > wonder if the first/last is a "stratum-identifiable" gloss. I think so, and it nicely illustrates the point (I hope). It's at least formally parallel to the kinds of inversionary themes we find redactionally in stratum-1 sayings like #5. The same hand, one presumes, who ADDED the gloss at the end of #5 also added this gloss at the end of #4 (and cf. #14, concluding gloss; the secondary concatenation of elements in #33; as well as the thematic content [hence reaction here is only selection, not alteration] of ##20, 31; etc.). And these sayings seem to eschew that cluster of features I associate with teh secondary readction. Coincidence? Nah. > 15 "that one is your Father" 16 "and they will stand solitary" > doesn't seem to be a gloss as it stands but part of the original Well, I disagree on the status of this concluding remark. It seems intrusive, and not just by virtue of synoptic comparison. This saying (#16) actually stands as a decent example of the kind of two-perspective redacting I was earlier trying to explain. We have here two core sayings with rather different points (cast conflicts; family divisions) plus an intrusive gloss (IMHO). The principle by which the two core sayings were (secondarily) juxtaposed (i.e., the inversionary theme of conflict versus peace) and the principle by which the gloss was added to the end of the material (reunification of division) are quite distinct from one another. Hence we have evidence here of two rather different interventions into the text from disticnt redactional perspectives. In this case, I don't think you can sequence these change from within this saying alone: I.e., there's no internal reason to posit which emedation was first. But, as it turns out, the principle by which one emendation was made is shared by such sayings as 4,5,20,31, etc.; and the other by such sayings as 22,23,30,61, and so on. Re. 114: > This is "women" specific and "male" specific. Woman bad, male > good. Not "reproduction" and not "anti-sexual" (22 is > anti-sexual --- and contrasts with this here). Except that woman CANNOT here mean "physical human women," because Jesus is somehow capable of "making Mary male." So the question is, what does that mean, short of an operation in Sweden. Whatever is involved in making Mary male will tell us the content of what is being denigrated by the METAPHORICAL use of "woman" here. Bill ________________________________________ William E. Arnal 19 University Place, #503 Religious Studies/Classics New York, NY 10003 New York University (212) 998-8990 (o) william.arnal@nyu.edu (212) 995-5036 (h)