ok, this is the alternative explanation:
* Thomas or something like it (I'm generous) is original
* Ev which precedes Luke wishes to incorporate the pre-existing parables (which must precede the writing of Ev in any case)
* Ev lacked the interpretation of the parable originally, the interpretation was added when Ev became Luke (fatigue occurs here)
* Your point 4 yes, Mark knew Ev (I guess not Luke)
But Luke doesn't follow Thomas exactly. In Thomas it does not say why the seed would not grow, only that it didn't 'take root'. It doesn't say it had no root but it's not unreasonable it was a well known saying, nor the collection source well known
So this is an alternative. If you want I'll say it is not inherently 'better' but it should be considered
By the way, one could quibble on whether Ev originally lacked the explanation. That's a point of interest in the study of Ev that's germane (no pun indended) to this
Also a final note. The 'lack moisture' of Ev/Luke (one can quibble on what was original) could tip to the Luke side if one saw a reference to Isaiah 8:6
The first 3 words on this verse Διὰ τὸ μὴ and ἔχειν are a match - in the LXX. Did 'moisture' come from a scripture quote? That is more likely for a Luke than an Ev. I lack the knowledge to know if this co-incidence is significant or not... but if you look at Matthew immediately after the parable of the sower there is a quote from Isaiah 6. Significant?
“Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah and rejoiced in Rezin and the son of Remaliah”
LXX
Διὰ τὸ μὴ βούλεσθαι τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Σιλωαμ τὸ πορευόμενον ἡσυχῇ, ἀλλὰ βούλεσθαι ἔχειν τὸν Ραασσων καὶ τὸν υἱὸν Ρομελιου βασιλέα ἐφ' ὑμῶν,
Luke
καὶ ἕτερον κατέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, καὶ φυὲν ἐξηράνθη διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἰκμάδα.
Funny how Luke 8:6 would be quoting Isaiah 8:6 that's a neat coincidence
* Thomas or something like it (I'm generous) is original
* Ev which precedes Luke wishes to incorporate the pre-existing parables (which must precede the writing of Ev in any case)
* Ev lacked the interpretation of the parable originally, the interpretation was added when Ev became Luke (fatigue occurs here)
* Your point 4 yes, Mark knew Ev (I guess not Luke)
But Luke doesn't follow Thomas exactly. In Thomas it does not say why the seed would not grow, only that it didn't 'take root'. It doesn't say it had no root but it's not unreasonable it was a well known saying, nor the collection source well known
So this is an alternative. If you want I'll say it is not inherently 'better' but it should be considered
By the way, one could quibble on whether Ev originally lacked the explanation. That's a point of interest in the study of Ev that's germane (no pun indended) to this
Also a final note. The 'lack moisture' of Ev/Luke (one can quibble on what was original) could tip to the Luke side if one saw a reference to Isaiah 8:6
The first 3 words on this verse Διὰ τὸ μὴ and ἔχειν are a match - in the LXX. Did 'moisture' come from a scripture quote? That is more likely for a Luke than an Ev. I lack the knowledge to know if this co-incidence is significant or not... but if you look at Matthew immediately after the parable of the sower there is a quote from Isaiah 6. Significant?
“Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah and rejoiced in Rezin and the son of Remaliah”
LXX
Διὰ τὸ μὴ βούλεσθαι τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Σιλωαμ τὸ πορευόμενον ἡσυχῇ, ἀλλὰ βούλεσθαι ἔχειν τὸν Ραασσων καὶ τὸν υἱὸν Ρομελιου βασιλέα ἐφ' ὑμῶν,
Luke
καὶ ἕτερον κατέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, καὶ φυὲν ἐξηράνθη διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἰκμάδα.
Funny how Luke 8:6 would be quoting Isaiah 8:6 that's a neat coincidence
Statistics: Posted by davidmartin — Wed Apr 24, 2024 1:04 am