Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:05:48 GMT From: Mark Goodacre To: Crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Subject: Thomas Q Project Recalibration: Part 1 Steve wrote: > Mark, where is your recalibration? I await it eagerly. I am afraid I got caught up in going back over the examples again. I was annotating Bob's chart to bring it into line with the comments on the commentators and I began to notice some anomolies and problems, so have been checking through the whole thing, hence the delay. Anyway, here is part one of the chart (at the bottom of the message), but first some comments and summary on the first eleven examples (originally David Cedor's). If there is no comment, the original verdict is taken for granted, of course. > 3) Q1 6:23 Th 68 1. Spurious example The problem here is the Q verse is wrong. It should be Q 6.22 (see Koester, p. 87): Matt. 5.11 "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account." Luke 6.22 " Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! Thom. 68: Jesus said, "Blessed are you when they hated you and persecute you. Wherever you have been persecuted they will find no Place." Now, which is closer? I would say that Matthew is a touch closer because he, like Thomas, has "persecute". Although Thomas // Luke in English translation (Greek MISEW) both have "hate" where Matt. has "revile" (Greek ONEIDIZW, which Luke also has later in the verse), Luke does not have "persecute" (Greek DIWKW) here at all. Further, Luke specifies the subject of the hating (men / people, hOI ANQRWPOI) where Thom. and Matthew do not. Compare Matt // Luke with Thomas in Greeven's Greek translation of the Coptic: Matt. 5.11: MAKARIOI ESTE hOTAN ONEIDWSIN hUMAS KAI DIWCWCIN KAI EIPWSIN PAN PONHRON KAQ hUMWN hENEKA EMOU. Luke 6.22: MAKARIOI ESTE hOTAN MISWSIN hUMAS hOI ANQRWPOI KAI hOTAN AFORISWSIN hUMAS KAI ONEIDISWSIN KAI EKBALWSIN TO ONOMA hUMWN hWS PONHRON hENEKA TOU hUIOU TOU ANQRWPOU. Thom. 68: MAKARIOI ESTE hOTAN MISHSWSIN hUMAS KAI DIWCWSIN hUMAS. Further, cf. Koester, p. 89: "The phrase 'and cast out your name as evil on account of the Son of Man is certainly Lukan; it is missing in the parallel passage Matt. 5.11. Moreover, the reference to persecution has disappeared in the Lukan redaction of this saying, but is preserved in Matt. 5.11." So I move that this is a (2), closer to Matt. than to Luke. ---------------------------------- > 4) Q1 6:23 Th 69a 1. Spurious example I do not know where the "Q 6.23" has come from here. Thom. 69a is parallel to Matt. 5.8, 10, the first of which (Mt 5.8) does not have a Lukan parallel, the second of which (Mt 5.10) does -- and it is in the previous example (Luke 6.22): Matt. 5.8: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matt. 5.10: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Thom. 69) Jesus said, "Blessed are they who have been persecuted within themselves. It is they who have truly come to know the Father. We should probably exclude this example, therefore, except to note that there is more Thomas - Matthew similarity, and that Thom 69a is closer to Matt. 5.10 than to Luke 6.22. ? (1) rating. ----------------------------------------------- > 5) Q1 6:30 Th 95[K?] 1. Spurious example This example is also complex. Here is David's grouping of parallels (with references added): Luke 6.30: Give to everyone who begs from you; and when someone takes your things, don't ask for them back. Matt. 5.42: Give to the one who begs from you; and don't turn away the one who tries to borrow from you. Thom. 95: If you have money, don't lend it at interest. Rather, give [it] to someone from whom you won't get it back. Steve rightly commented that if we are looking at this group of parallels, Matthew is closer to Thomas than Luke, so a (2) rating would be right. Steve also rightly pointed out subsequently that there is a second parallel to Thomas in Luke 6.34, "And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even `sinners' lend to `sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full." This example is therefore somewhat like the previous one (in which there was a clear Thomas parallel only to Matthew). In this example, if we allow the Luke-only parallel, this is a (3). If not, it is a (2), for the strict parallel is closest to Matt. ----------------------- > 6) Q1 6:31 Th 6b 1. Spurious example Stephen Carlson also votes (1) here. It is either that or (4) -- Matt. and Luke are as like and unlike Thomas Matt. 7.12: "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them" Luke 6.31: "And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them. Thom. 6b " . . . do not do what you hate . . ." ------------------------------------ > Q1 6:39 Th 34 2. More like Matthew Agreed, though nothing should be made of the difference in the English translation "ditch" (Mt / Lk) and "hole" (Thom.). -------------------------------------- 9) Q1 6:44-45 Th 43. > Spurious example The reference here needs correction. Over this and the next example, we need some more clarity. It should really include Q 6.43. Koester, p. 88 gives the parallel as Q 6.43 // Thom. 43. I will give the whole context below in Matt. and Luke because it is relevant to the Thomas saying: Matt. 7.16: You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 7.17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 7.18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 7.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Luke 6.43 For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; 6.44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. Thom. 43b: but you have become like the Jews, for they (either) love the tree and hate its fruit or love the fruit and hate the tree." This should be either a (1) or a (4). --------------------------------------- > 10) Q1 6:44-45 Th 45. Roughly equal, though I tend slightly > toward Luke here David and Steve focused on the parallel in Matt. 12.33-35, but we should look again also at Matt. 7.16-19. I will give the passages in full: Matt. 7.16: You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 7.17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 7.18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 7.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Matt. 12.33 Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. 12.34 You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 12.35 The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. Luke 6.43 For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; 6.44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 6.45 The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. Thom. 45: Jesus said, "Grapes are not harvested from thorns, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they do not produce fruit. A good man brings forth good from his storehouse; an evil man brings forth evil things from his evil storehouse, which is in his heart, and says evil things. For out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil things." Steve and David effectively agreed a 4 (Steve was half (2) and half (3)) and I would agree. ----------------------------------------- 11) Q2 7:24 Th 78 4. Roughly equal, but the > meaning in Thomas seems to be very different. Steve suggested adjusting this to a (2) vote because Luke "gets cute" and instead of "soft clothes" the second time round, he has "expensive" clothes. Matthew, on the other hand, parallels Thomas's "soft clothes" twice. I think that this is right, so a marginal (2) should be recorded. ------------------------------------------ Let me summarise the first set results according to this adjustment. The original chart looked like this: 1) Q1 6:20 Th 54 3 (Cedor) 2) Q1 6:21 Th 69b 3 (Cedor) 3) Q1 6:23 Th 68 [1]? (Cedor) 4) Q1 6:23 Th 69a [1]? (Cedor) 5) Q1 6:30 Th 95[K?] [1]? (Cedor) 6) Q1 6:31 Th 6b [1]? (Cedor)1 (Carlson) 7) [15:13Mt] Th 40[P] [1]? (Cedor) 8) Q1 6:39 Th 34 2 (Cedor) 9) Q1 6:44-45 Th 43 [1]? (Cedor) 10) Q1 6:44-45 Th 45 4 (Cedor) 11) Q2 7:24 Th 78 ? (Cedor) 4 (Schacht) This is the first part of the new version. I have got rid of "Q1" etc. which is irrelevant to this project, and obscures the data. I have corrected the references and have added a clarifying word next to each number to remind us what they mean. 1) Q 6:20 Th 54 3 (Luke) 2) Q 6:21 Th 69b 3 (Luke) 3) Q 6:22 Th 68 2 (Matthew) 4) Q Mt 5.8, 10 Th 69a 1 (no Lukan par.) 5) Q 6:30 Th 95[K?] 4 (complex) 6) Q 6:31 Th 6b 4/1 (spurious?) 7) Q Mt 15:13 Th 40[P] 1 (spurious) 8) Q 6:39 Th 34 2 (Matthew) 9) Q 6:43 Th 43 4/1 (even?) 10) Q 6:44-45 Th 45 4 (even) 11) Q 7:24 Th 78 2 (Matthew) I know that it is hard work, but I would be grateful if anyone else is able to check these findings. I will go on with the next set next, and produce a final chart next week. I will have more time, of course, if England fail to qualify for the next stage of the World Cup tonight. All the best 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