Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 19:14:43 +0400 From: Stevan Davies To: 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 redaction > here is only selection, not alteration] of ##20, 31; etc.). > And these sayings seem to eschew that cluster of features I > associate with the secondary readction. Coincidence? Nah. Well, you can't say I haven't tried, but I cannot make sense of this sort of thing. We've got redaction as selection and who knows what all as redaction types elsewhere. And if you select certain of these redactional elements they don't have some sort of features found in other sayings. If I just go through and chop out "redactions" (and surely a fine case can be made that they aren't "redactions" in any known sense but, rather, evidence of combination pattern in oral tradition... hence, I guess, oral redaction, a hitherto unknown commodity) I get this bunch: A: Introduced by "for" -- ALL traditional, some inversionary some not. 4) For many who are first will become last, [and the last first, GK] and they will become one and the same." 5) For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest." 6) For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." 14) For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you." 16) For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father and they will stand solitary." 33) For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but rather he sets it on a lampstand so that everyone who enters and leaves will see its light." 45) For out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil things." 79) 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.'" B) Introduced by direct address -- ALL traditional: 39) You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves." 76) You too, seek his unfailing and enduring treasure where no moth comes near to devour and no worm destroys." C) Introduced by reference to Jesus' speech 46) Yet I have said whichever one of you comes to be a child will be acquainted with the Kingdom and will become superior to John. 61) "Therefore I say, if he is , he will be filled with light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness." 111) Does not Jesus say, "Whoever finds himself is superior to the world?" The only ones of these that appear to be "redactional" in any familiar sense are the last three. Surely if we went through the synoptics looking for *gar* and *you* clauses attaching sayings together we'd find some... but nobody to my knowledge has argued that these are redactional indications. They are ways the evangelists connected things... and presumably are ways that the evangelist Thomas connected things too, originally, before any redactions. > > 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. 16) Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary." The inversionary bit in this case is primary and the other business added. Elsewhere there's a piece of business and then an inversionary bit added. These cannot be said to be the same thing! More commonly there's something added that isn't an inversionary bit, most of which are inversionary "wisdom" known from the synoptics and others of which aren't. Sometimes these bits are also juxtaposed in just the same ways in the synoptics, as here (cf. Mt 10:34-35//) although we assume no intertextuality. How this all adds up to > evidence here of two rather > different interventions into the text from disticnt > redactional perspectives is beyond me. Especially since the concluding "and they will stand solitary" is NOT a "gloss was added to the end of the material (reunification of division)." You have a statement about division within families 3-2, then 1 on 1, then "they will stand solitary." This is coherent and consistent as it stands. You have "solitary" in 49 and 75 too, but that does not make 16 a glossed saying, rather it is a saying that may reflect the same terminology as 49 and 75 which would make one think that the three of them circulated in the same group. If it were an "intrusion" it would be obviously inconsistent, an aporia, is that the word?, but it isn't any such thing! 4 and 23 do seem glossed with a 2 into 1 motif. For your idea to work, 4b must be a gloss. Question then is whether it is methodologically sound to put the "for" clauses in the category of "textual interventions." They are ALL synoptic paralleled and so reflect no redactional tendency except the propensity to write down Jesus sayings (some of which are inversionary) and that's what the original non-glossed Thomas is. If 4b isn't a gloss, then your method fails, it seems to me. Doesn't it seem altogether more likely that the "for" and "you" material cited above came into Thomas from oral tradition already connected with the material it's connected to? Steve