Seeking the Imperishable Treasure. Steven R. Johnson
Читать онлайн книгу.
target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_603021b9-6988-5950-ab70-da30e5971448">16. Uro, “‘Secondary Orality,’” esp. 317–20, 22–24. This article was revised as “Thomas and Oral Gospel Tradition.” Uro expands on the interaction of orality and textuality in Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context, 106–33.
17. For the concept and term, Uro cites Haenchen, “Literatur,” 178; Snodgrass, “The Gospel of Thomas,” 27–28; and Kelber, Oral and the Written Gospel, 197.
18. “Uro, “‘Secondary Orality,’” 20–22, 24.
19. Robinson, “Evaluation of Q 12:49–53,” 119–21.
20. Robinson and Heil, “Zeugnisse.”
21. Ibid., 36–39, 42–44. Robinson argues elsewhere that P. Oxy. 655 (GTh 36) preserves many details of this pericope that are more primitive than Q and can be used to reconstruct a pre-Q aphoristic core of sayings. See Robinson, “Pre-Q Text”; idem, “A Written Greek Sayings Cluster.” Robinson’s and Heil’s findings have not gone unchallenged. Jens Schröter addressed them in “Vorsynoptische Überlieferung.” Robinson and Heil responded with “Noch einmal.” Stanley E. Porter challenged the thesis in “P.Oxy. 655.” Robinson and Heil responded with “P.Oxy. 655 und Q”; and “The Lilies of the Field,” esp. 9–21. Robinson provides a thoroughgoing English response to Schröter in “A Pre-Canonical Greek Reading.” There, he also addresses the concerns of Robert H. Gundry, “Spinning the Lilies.” The most recent critique comes from Dirk Jongkind, “‘The Lilies of the Field’ Reconsidered.” All of the Robinson (and Heil) articles on this subject are contained in Robinson, The Sayings Gospel Q.
22. Robinson, “Pre-Q Text.”
23. Robinson, “Evaluation.”
24. Uro, “’Secondary Orality.’”
25. Uro, “Neither Here nor There”; Robinson and Heil, “Zeugnisse.”
26. Uro, ibid., 30.
27. Robinson and Heil, “Zeugnisse,” chart.
28. Riley, “Influence.”
29. Ibid., 230–31. On μεριστήϚ, see LSJSupp, 98b.
30. Riley, “Influence,” 231–32.
31. Ibid., 232.
32. Ibid., 233.
33. Ibid., 233–34.
34. On the one hand, knowledge of a particular community privileging this sayings tradition may have given the collection more authority in the eyes of the Lukan editor. On the other hand, unlike what Riley finds in his book Resurrection Reconsidered, a study which provides evidence of hermeneutical polemics between communities, Luke wouldn’t appear to have a particular theological bone to pick with the Thomas tradition, judging by the examples Riley gives in the HTR article (“Influence”).
35. See Robinson, “The Study of the Historical Jesus after Nag Hammadi,” esp. 50–53. Robinson sees GTh 3 as evidence for an early tradition perhaps taken up by Q. Patterson rules out dependence in either direction on the basis of lack of verbal correspondence (Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 71–72). However, what he shows is that neither thesis is ultimately demonstrable on the basis of verbal comparison, especially when moving between Greek and Coptic. In noting the differences in the way Luke 17:20 and GTh 113:1–2 introduce the dominical saying, however, he fails to recognize that the difference in one could be due to alteration of the text of the other to create a different literary context for a similar saying, even using a typically more complex sentence structure for the introduction For example, inasmuch as 17:21 and 17:23 could be perceived as somewhat repetitious statements to the disciples, the author of Luke, in including the Thomasine material at this point, may have placed 17:20a on the lips of another group, the Pharisees, before redactionally prefacing the Q speech on the Coming of the Son of Humanity with a reference to the disciples (17:22), creating two separate conversations. Furthermore, there is almost verbatim similarity between Luke 17:21b and P. Oxy. 654.15–16 (GTh 3:3a), with Luke using a redactional ἰδοὺ γάρ to introduce the saying in its new context as an explanation for 17:20–21a (ἰδού possibly even coming from GTh 113:3’s second “behold”). Hence, Lukan conflation of two sayings in Thomas is not only not ruled out, but is quite plausible, despite the perceived lack of verbal correspondence between Luke 17:20–21a and GTh 113:1–2. This hypothesis would answer the question of Luke’s otherwise unknown source for 17:20–21 and ought to be explored further.
36. Cf. Schürmann, “Thomasevangelium.”
37. E.g., Evelyn-White, Sayings of Jesus, xxxiv–xxxvi; Doresse, Secret Books, 339, 342, 350, 375–83; Wilson, Studies, 87; Kasser, Thomas; Brown, “Gospel of Thomas”; Koester, “Gnostic Writings”; idem, “Dialog”; Sell, “Johannine Traditions”; Davies, “Thomas,” esp. 106–16; Koester, “Gnostic Sayings”; idem, “Les discours d’adieu,” esp. 269–71, 275; idem, Ancient Christian Gospels, 113–24, 256–67; Patterson, “Gospel of Thomas”; Koester, “Story”; Riley, “Gospel of Thomas,” 239–40; idem, Resurrection; De Conick, “Blessed”; Pagels, “Exegesis of Genesis 1”; Attridge, “‘Seeking’ and ‘Asking,’”; DeConick, Voices of the Mystics; idem, “John Rivals Thomas”; Pagels, Beyond Belief; Popkes, “‘Ich bin das Licht.’” Translations and commentaries have noted similarities, be they a word, a phrase, or an idea, from Doresse to the present (Doresse, Thomas).
38. Evelyn-White, Sayings of Jesus, xxxv.
39. Ibid., xxxv–xxxvi.
40. Wilson, Studies, 87.
41. Brown, “Gospel of Thomas,” 157.
42. Ibid., 174.
43. Ibid., 175.