Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:45:58 +0000
From: Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk>
To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: Thomas Q project (Davies on Cedor]

David Cedor / Steve Davies:

> >  1) Q1  6:20      Th 54
> > LUKE:  Congratulations, you poor! God's domain belongs to you.
> > MATT:  Congratulations to the poor in spirit! Heaven's domain
> > belongs to them. THOM:  Congratulations to the poor, for to you
> > belongs Heaven's domain.
> > 
> > Cedor's vote: 3. Thomas is more like Luke than like Matthew.
> > "Heaven's domain" is like Matthew, but the lack of
> > spiritualization makes this more like Luke's version.
> 
> However, the indirect address in Matthew//Thomas. But I suppose you
> are right in favoring Luke.

Luke is really "Blessed the poor" or "blessed are the poor" here too. 
The first three of Luke's beatitudes follow the form of all eight of 
Matthew's.  Only Luke's fourth becomes explicitly "Blessed are you . 
. ." following Matt. 5.11, "Blessed are you when . . .".   Matt. 5.11 
is the interpretation of the eighth beatitude (Matt. 5.10), 
and this interpretation is sometimes (in my view erroneously) called 
the ninth beatitude.

Why then do translators go for "Blessed are you" for Luke's first 
three?  Because either (a) they are unduly influenced by Luke's 
fourth beatitude or (b) they think that "Blessed are the . . . 
because you . . . ." sounds ungainly or (c) they think that the 
second person plural in the second clause ("because you") interprets 
the nominative plural in the first clause ("Blessed are the").  All 
are problematic and we should therefore go with the more literal 
"Blessed are the . . . because you".


> >  2) Q1  6:21      Th 69b
> > LUKE: Congratulations, you hungry! You will have a feast.
> > Congratulations, you who weep now! You will laugh.
> > MATT: Congratulations to those who hunger and thirst for justice!
> > They will have a feast. THOM: Congratulations to those who go
> > hungry, so the stomach of the one in want may be filled.
> 
> > Cedor's vote: 3. Thomas is more like Luke here than like Matthew,
> > although after the first clause there is no similarity between
> > Lk/Matthew and Thomas.
> 
> However, the indirect address in Matthew//Thomas. Again I suppose
> you are right in favoring Luke. 

Ditto comments, though here with a different impact on the result.

Mark
-------------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre    M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk
 Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

--------------------------------------------

Crosstalk Web Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/crosstalk