Subject: Re: Gk GTh Hidden and Revealed Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:07:24 -0400 From: "Stevan Davies" To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com > From: "Mark Goodacre" > On the other > hand, if one holds a less rigid, and I would say more plausible view, Thomas's > dependence on Luke might not be required for this saying -- agreed. I think > Steve and I are quite close on this perception of the way the evangelists > proceeded. Where we may need to be more careful is pronouncing on the relative > primitivity of the different elements -- on what criteria could we establish > which version of this saying, if any, was the most primitive? We would end up more or less with the Jesus Seminar. We'd say that multiple attestation points toward a future tense rather than a purely subjunctive saying, and we'd support that with the observation that Mark's elimination of future is at the service of his redactional program in chapter 4 where the seed IS sown, not WILL BE, and the light should shine now (4:21) and not later on. I don't think this is a hard case. Moving on to Mark 4:21, we have there redundant rhetorical questions (which are definitive Markan redactional techniques, cf. Neyrinck) over against Mt 5:15, Lk 8:16, Lk 11:33 Thomas 33b Mark 4:21 He said to them, "Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don't you put it on its stand? 33b) Jesus said, 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." Matthew 5:15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. Luke 8:16 "No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. Luke 11:33 "No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead he puts it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light. Here we have a "reversion to type" again by Lk etc. over Mk.... Thomas containing the same type. This is NOT the sort of thing one can claim is Mt or Lk "redaction" as though when Thomas has more or less the same thing (but by no means exactly the same thing) it shows that Thomas is dependent on the synoptics. I'm really writing this more to Jeff than to you, Mark, because I think he has come to be convinced that there is some significant amount of Lk or Mt redaction of Mk in Thomas when, in fact, upon examination, that "redaction" fails as substantial evidence. 4:21, and 4:22 aren't really "redacted" in the significant sense of that word. I wonder what examples Jeff will use to support his belief that there is such significant "redaction" that dependence is strongly supported! [And, of course, the more "primitive" version here is, I think, obvious. It ain't Mark's.] Steve