In the Synoptics we find a verse that is shared by all three; the hidden lamp:
Mark 4:21 He said to them, "Is the lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Isn't it put on a stand?
Luke 8:16 "No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container, or puts it under a bed; but puts it on a stand, that those who enter in may see the light.
Matthew 5:15 Neither do you light a lamp and put it under a measuring basket, but on a stand; and it shines to all who are in the house.
As often, we find a minor disagreement among a major agreement: the place where the lamp is hidden. Mark and Luke hide it in two places, Matthew has only one: he leaves out the bed that both have. What all three share then is some sort of covering used for the lamp, and it is striking that all three have an entirely different word for it:
basket,
container and
measuring basket
The difference with regards to this word becomes more striking when we look at the next phrase, where all three agree on putting it on a stand. As usual, the biblical translations shouldn't be taken at face value because they often are interpretations in stead of translations, to which a sample of the possible translations of Mark attests: (
https://biblehub.com/mark/4-21.htm)
Bowl, basket, bushel, peck-measure, clay pot, measure: these are the variant translations for Mark alone in slightly over two dozen translations. What does the Greek say?
Mark 4:21 Καὶ (And) ἔλεγεν (He was saying) αὐτοῖς (to them) 〈ὅτι〉(-), “Μήτι (Not) ἔρχεται (is brought in) ὁ (the) λύχνος (lamp) ἵνα (so that) ὑπὸ (under) τὸν (the) μόδιον (basket) τεθῇ (it might be put), ἢ (or) ὑπὸ (under) τὴν (the) κλίνην (bed)?
Luke 8:16 Οὐδεὶς (No one) δὲ (now) λύχνον (a lamp) ἅψας (having lighted), καλύπτει (covers) αὐτὸν (it) σκεύει (with a vessel), ἢ (or) ὑποκάτω (under) κλίνης (a bed) τίθησιν (puts it)
Matthew 5:15 οὐδὲ (Nor) καίουσιν (do they light) λύχνον (a lamp) καὶ (and) τιθέασιν (put) αὐτὸν (it) ὑπὸ (under) τὸν (-) μόδιον (a basket), ἀλλ’ (but) ἐπὶ (upon) τὴν (the) λυχνίαν (lampstand), καὶ (and) λάμπει (it shines) πᾶσιν (for all) τοῖς (those) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) οἰκίᾳ (house).
That helps to narrow it down, we only have two diferent words now in stead of three: μόδιον and σκεύει. What is their meaning?
A μόδιος (
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... try=modius) is a Latin loanword, '
a dry measure, Lat. modius, = the sixth of a medimnus, about 2 gallons, NTest.' and it is attested to by LSJ (
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dmo%2Fdios) and Middle Liddell (
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dmo%2Fdios), and the Latin is in
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... y%3Dmodius
Luke has σκεῦος (
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dskeu%3Dos) - a thingy, so to say: '
a vessel or implement of any kind, Ar., Thuc., etc.:—pl. in collective sense, furniture, house-gear, utensils, chattels'
So the lamp gets covered by two entirely different objects:
1) in Luke's case it could be pretty much anything, and when we traverse the NT we find it in various places:
Mark 11:16 καὶ (And) οὐκ (not) ἤφιεν (He would permit) ἵνα (that) τις (anyone) διενέγκῃ (should carry) σκεῦος (a vessel) διὰ (through) τοῦ (the) ἱεροῦ (temple).
John 19:29 σκεῦος (A vessel) ἔκειτο (had been set there) ὄξους (of sour wine) μεστόν (full); σπόγγον (a sponge) οὖν (therefore) μεστὸν (filled) τοῦ (with) ὄξους (sour wine), ὑσσώπῳ (a stalk of hyssop) περιθέντες (having put on), προσήνεγκαν (they brought) αὐτοῦ (it) τῷ (to the) στόματι (mouth).
Acts 9:15 Εἶπεν (Said) δὲ (however) πρὸς (to) αὐτὸν (him) ὁ (the) Κύριος (Lord), “Πορεύου (Go), ὅτι (for) σκεῦος (a vessel) ἐκλογῆς (of choice) ἐστίν (is) μοι (to Me) οὗτος (this man), τοῦ (-) βαστάσαι (to carry) τὸ (the) ὄνομά (name) μου (of Me) ἐνώπιον (before) (τῶν) (the) ἐθνῶν (Gentiles), τε (and) καὶ (also) βασιλέων (kings), υἱῶν (the sons) τε (then) Ἰσραήλ (of Israel);
Acts 10:16 Τοῦτο (This) δὲ (now) ἐγένετο (took place) ἐπὶ (for) τρίς (three times), καὶ (and) εὐθὺς (immediately) ἀνελήμφθη (was taken up) τὸ (the) σκεῦος (vessel) εἰς (into) τὸν (-) οὐρανόν (heaven).
Acts 27:17 ἣν (which) ἄραντες (having taken up), βοηθείαις (supports) ἐχρῶντο (they began using), ὑποζωννύντες (undergirding) τὸ (the) πλοῖον (ship). φοβούμενοί (Fearing) τε (then) μὴ (lest) εἰς (into) τὴν (the) Σύρτιν (sandbars of Syrtis) ἐκπέσωσιν (they should fall), χαλάσαντες (having lowered) τὸ (the) σκεῦος (gear), c οὕτως (thus) ἐφέροντο (they were driven along).
Romans 9:21 ἢ (Or) οὐκ (not) ἔχει (has) ἐξουσίαν (authority) ὁ (the) κεραμεὺς (potter) τοῦ (over the) πηλοῦ (clay), ἐκ (out of) τοῦ (the) αὐτοῦ (same) φυράματος (lump) ποιῆσαι (to make) ὃ (one) μὲν (indeed) εἰς (unto) τιμὴν (honor) σκεῦος (vessel), ὃ (one) δὲ (however) εἰς (unto) ἀτιμίαν (dishonor)?
1 Thessalonians 4:4 εἰδέναι (to know) ἕκαστον (each) ὑμῶν (of you how) τὸ (the) ἑαυτοῦ (of himself) σκεῦος (vessel) κτᾶσθαι (to control) ἐν (in) ἁγιασμῷ (holiness) καὶ (and) τιμῇ (honor),
2 Timothy 2:21 ἐὰν (If) οὖν (therefore) τις (anyone) ἐκκαθάρῃ (shall have cleansed) ἑαυτὸν (himself) ἀπὸ (from) τούτων (these), ἔσται (he will be) σκεῦος (a vessel) εἰς (for) τιμήν (honor), ἡγιασμένον (having been sanctified), εὔχρηστον (useful) τῷ (to the) δεσπότῃ (Master), εἰς (for) πᾶν (every) ἔργον (work) ἀγαθὸν (good) ἡτοιμασμένον (having been prepared).
"Good luck with that" would likely apply here, as the application of this word is wide. There are 9 more occurrences of the word, in the phrase τὰ (the) σκεύη (goods), and twice there is a verb with its root, and one last use is in 1 Peter 3:7.
The best - or rather, the least bad - translation here seems indeed to be (small, household-sized) vessel, not to be mistaken for the larger version where the word is used for a boat. Is this word describing anything in detail, does it convey its size or even shape? Not at all, it is completely non-descript. Now, what about Matthew?
2) In Mark and Matthew we find a
Roman corn-measure, a measure, peck, containing sixteen sextarii, or the sixth part of a Greek medimnus, is what
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... y%3Dmodius says - now that is quite the opposite! We have an exact volume, and the shape that one envisions would be "a pragmatic one". Wikipedia teaches us that
Serapis' statue suitably depicted a figure resembling Hades or Pluto, both being kings of the Greek underworld, and was shown enthroned with the modius, a basket/grain-measure, on his head, since it was a Greek symbol for the land of the dead (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis#History)
Well, from entirely non-descript we've come to not only very descript, but there might even be a connotation to this word of Mark's and Matthew's choice. And that is striking, because usually the evolution in a text or product is towards a greater detail and not away from it.
What's more, Mark and Matthew are the only ones using this Latin loanword - save for Luke!
Luke 8:16 And no one having lighted a lamp, covers it with a vessel, or puts it under a bed. But he puts it on a lampstand, so that those entering in may see the light.
Luke 11:33 But no one having lit a lamp, sets it in secret, nor under the basket, but upon the lampstand, that those entering in may see the light.
Secret? The word is κρύπτην, from the verb κρύπτω (
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dkru%2Fptw), to hide. 'Secret' is an interpretation by extension, and most certainly not the correct translation here, as so very often is the case in bible translations:
κρύπτω
I.to hide, cover, cloak, Hom., attic:—Mid., κάρα κρυψάμενος having cloaked his head, Soph., etc.:—Pass. to hide oneself, lie hidden, of setting stars, Hes., Eur.
2.to cover in the earth, bury, Hes., Hdt., attic
3.to hide, conceal, keep secret, Od., Soph.: —Pass., perf. part. κεκρυμμένος secret, Od., Soph.
4.c. dupl. acc. to conceal something from one, μή με κρύψηις τοῦτο Aesch., etc.
II.intr. (sub. ἑαυτόν) to hide oneself, lie hidden, Soph.
Luke 11:33 Οὐδεὶς (But no one) λύχνον (a lamp) ἅψας (having lit), εἰς (in) κρύπτην (secret) τίθησιν (sets it), οὐδὲ (nor) ὑπὸ (under) τὸν (the) μόδιον (basket), ἀλλ’ (but) ἐπὶ (upon) τὴν (the) λυχνίαν (lampstand), ἵνα (that) οἱ (those) εἰσπορευόμενοι (entering in) τὸ (the) φέγγος (light) βλέπωσιν (may see).
And the Latin loanword is underlined, and exactly similar to that of Mark and Matthew.
What is going on here? These two Lukan verses are evidently the same, and Luke is repeating himself here, and we find three occurrences of the Latin loanword modius in these four verses (Mark, Matthew and twice for Luke). What's more, we find only two occurrences of 'bed', and one unique one of a 'hidden place'.
And that last word bears a striking resemblance to yet another instance of this verse
Thomas logion 33:
33. said IS he-who you will hear [dop] he in your ear in the other ear proclaim [dop] he from-upon your(PL.PL) roof
not-usually anyone Indeed ignite candlestick and he place he at ear
Nor not-usually he place he in place he be-hiding
Rather "habitually" he place he from-upon the(F) Lampstand in-order-that every-one who/which going-inward and who/which be-coming outward they will behold [dop] his light
Focus on the bold part. Again, we find two places where the candle or lamp is put, and if we ignore the first sentence then we find great agreement between Thomas and the canonicals.
What does the Coptic say for the italic part?
ⲙⲁⲣⲉ ⲗⲁⲁⲩ` ⲅⲁⲣ ϫⲉⲣⲉ ϩⲏⲃ̅ⲥ̄ ⲛ̄ ϥ`
ⲕⲁⲁ ϥ` ϩⲁ ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ
ⲙⲁⲣⲉ- ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲅⲁⲣ ϫⲉⲣⲟ ϩⲏⲃⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲧⲟϥ
ⲕⲱ ⲛⲧⲟϥ ϩⲁ- ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ
MS transcript in the first row, KELLIA CDO entry in the second, which leads directly to Crum
ⲕⲁⲁ ϥ` ϩⲁ ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ - place him to(ward) ear, ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ, the word that is so very present throughout Thomas: (from the Coptic-English concordance in my Translation)
ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ - Noun masculine, ear, Logion 8, 17, 21, 24, 33, 63, 65, 96, 97
The so very well-known "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" is a more than famous admonition in Thomas as well as the canonicals, and we find the same word here - yet it has more than one meaning, as it is a homonym:
https://coptic-dictionary.org/results.c ... e&lang=any
You searched for 'ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ'
2 Results
ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ -- ear, handle
ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ -- a measure of grain, fruit etc.
A measure! Why did I pick the other word in my Translation?
In my view, the joke is evident: you don't light a lamp and hold it to your ear (ya dummy!), you hold it to your eye. Thomas is fond of wordplay, and even if he weren't, why would he use this particular word?
Looking at a possible translation of 'ear' juxtaposed to the hiding or hidden place, we find three major changes: from (dynamically) using the candle it progresses to (statically) not being used, from (giving) light it progresses to dark(ness), from being visible it progresses to having become invisible.
What is the difference between being under a measure or in a hiding place? It remains unused, it remains devoid of light and in darkness, and it remains invisible - either one of these two applications is perfectly superfluous unless one would find a deeper meaning for either
It makes far more sense to translate the homonym with 'ear' than it does to translate it with 'measure' - but to do so would require a vitally different view on the text of Thomas; one would have to be able to imagine him being playful, humorous or perhaps even sarcastic.
Which is entirely possible and plausible of course, given e.g. his extremely biting sarcasm in logion 53, that of the circumcision. Talking about ears, the same double entendre is in play in logion 97, where the ear of the jar breaks - on that occasion the word doesn't get translated with 'measure', but with 'handle', and while that is the right word it naturally is the most uneventful translation, and a secondary one at that: the ear of a jar is a 'handle' by extension only, and Thomas only uses Greek loanwords to hint at a secondary meaning. The ear of the woman in logion 97 malfunctions, which is the entire cause for her jar emptying out. But I digress
Alright, what does all this imply?
There is undeniable agreement between Thomas and the canonicals, with a very strong link between Thomas and Luke and a much weaker link between Thomas and Mark / Matthew. It is evident that in his second version Luke sits between the three with his verbatim agreement going in either direction; he is the linking pin here, so to say.
We have 5 verses here, all in all. We also have 5 nouns that receive the very first action following the lighting of the lamp or candle although Luke 11:33 reverses the order there when compared to Thomas and his fellow gospel-writers - and himself, in his 8:16 copy.
3 occurrences of 'modius', one of 'vessel', and one of 'ear / measure' - and it seems clear how this story unfolded
- Thomas holds the lamp to his ear and puts it in a hiding place; Luke 8:16 copies that and misunderstands the joke, assumes that 'measure' is meant instead, and translates the Coptic with the very vague Greek word for 'vessel', which basically is equally as vague as the assumed Coptic word for 'measure'. He doesn't like the 'hiding place' and swaps that for a 'bed': from unprecise to precise.
Is this (proto-)Luke or (proto-)Marcion? What matters is that this is the likely first step in the process of copying
- Mark comes along and copies it wholesale, but he doesn't like the vague 'vessel', and swaps it for something more precise, namely a 'vessel' that is familiar to him: the Latin modius, an 8.5 litre scoop that most certainly fits a candle, it's about the size of the average bucket. Again, we see the evolution from vague to precise.
- Matthew comes along and copies Mark, but frowns at the odd 'bed', and just dumps it. As always, Matthew has the last word and perfects it all, removing all the clutter, the stumbling and stammering of Mark, the Thomasine words of Luke, the vagueries, the ambivalence. Matthew is a master of words and he cares about periods and commas, and will sometimes only slightly shift words, but he can't resist the temptation to change what he gets in front of him. In the process of the coming-into-being of the NT he clearly is part of the adolescent / maturity phase, whereas Mark undoubtedly belongs to the nascent / infant stage
- What to do with Luke 11:33? The κρύπτην is a straight pointer to Thomas yet the μόδιον is a straight pointer to Mark and Matthew, and I suspect that, while Matthew was creating Luke by copying Marcion, he changed the word for "vessel" (whichever was there) into modion because he couldn't endure two straight pointers to Thomas. I'll admit that's a rather wild argument but just take it for what it is, as the straight answer is: I dunno really, this verse doesn't fit in any of it as it is so very black-and-white Thomas-and-canonicals
Can Marcion come to the rescue and give us a clue? Not really
Let's play the devil's advocate and see whether this theory holds
If Thomas did indeed copy the canonicals, he would have been confronted with two possible choices for the word "basket/bushel/vessel etc". He could have just picked the Coptic Greek loanword ⲙⲟⲇⲓⲟⲛ, although it is always Luke who is closest to Thomas, and I don't see a Coptic word for σκεύει in the CDO.
But would he turn a bed into a hiding or hidden place? That would be double clever, befitting his theme of hidden (words):
hide ϩⲱⲡ Verb Logion 32, 39, 96
be-hiding ϩⲱⲡ+ Verb Logion 0, 5, 6, 33, 83, 108, 109
On the other hand there are 15 occurrences of the word 'hide' or 'hidden' (looking just for the root "κρυ") in Matthew, 2 in Mark, and 9 in Luke. Seems like another fix / addendum to Mark by these two, and I must admit that it is odd that Matthew outdoes Luke there.
But there is something very striking about that word, 'hidden', and the verses at hand:
Mark 4:22 οὐ (Nothing) γάρ (for) ἐστιν (there is) 〈τι〉 (which is) κρυπτὸν (hidden), ἐὰν (if) μὴ (not) ἵνα (that) φανερωθῇ (it should be made manifest), οὐδὲ (nor) ἐγένετο (has taken place) ἀπόκρυφον (a secret thing), ἀλλ’ (but) ἵνα (that) ἔλθῃ (it should come) εἰς (to) φανερόν (light).
Luke 8:17 οὐ (Nothing) γάρ (for) ἐστιν (is) κρυπτὸν (hidden) ὃ (which) οὐ (not) φανερὸν (manifest) γενήσεται (will become), οὐδὲ (nor) ἀπόκρυφον (secret) ὃ (which) οὐ (nothing) μὴ (not) γνωσθῇ (shall be known), καὶ (and) εἰς (to) φανερὸν (light) ἔλθῃ (come).
That's odd, isn't it? In the verse immediately following these ones, both Mark and Luke have the word hidden - twice even. Matthew doesn't - does he?
Matthew 5:14 Ὑμεῖς (You) ἐστε (are) τὸ (the) φῶς (light) τοῦ (of the) κόσμου (world). οὐ (Not) δύναται (is able) πόλις (a city) κρυβῆναι (to be hidden) ἐπάνω (on) ὄρους (a hill) κειμένη (lying).
Matthew has it in the preceding verse! What are the odds, really?
What are the odds that 'hidden / hide' occurs adjacent to this verse? I call that "inspiration".
But what about the first Thomas sentence?
He clearly has that as an extra, and it is an overwhelmingly obvious evidence of him being the culprit, he dunnit! Thomas copied the canonicals, told you so!!!
Actually, no: the rooftops didn't get copied along in this place, they got isolated in Luke 12:3 and Matthew 10:27
Matthew 10:27 ὃ (What) λέγω (I tell) ὑμῖν (you) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) σκοτίᾳ (darkness), εἴπατε (speak) ἐν (in) τῷ (the) φωτί (light); καὶ (and) ὃ (what) εἰς (in) τὸ (the) οὖς (ear) ἀκούετε (you hear), κηρύξατε (proclaim) ἐπὶ (upon) τῶν (the) δωμάτων (housetops)!
Luke 12:3 ἀνθ’ (Instead), ὧν (that) ὅσα (whatever) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) σκοτίᾳ (darkness) εἴπατε (you have said), ἐν (in) τῷ (the) φωτὶ (light) ἀκουσθήσεται (will be heard); καὶ (and) ὃ (what) πρὸς (into) τὸ (the) οὖς (ear) ἐλαλήσατε (you have spoken) ἐν (in) τοῖς (the) ταμείοις (inner rooms) κηρυχθήσεται (will be proclaimed) ἐπὶ (upon) τῶν (the) δωμάτων (housetops).
And what is it there which precedes Luke 12:3, and Matthew 10:27?
Luke 12:2 οὐδὲν (Nothing) δὲ (now) συγκεκαλυμμένον (concealed up) ἐστὶν (is), ὃ (which) οὐκ (not) ἀποκαλυφθήσεται (will be revealed), καὶ (nor) κρυπτὸν (hidden) ὃ (which) οὐ (not) γνωσθήσεται (will be known).
Matthew 10:26 Μὴ (Not) οὖν (therefore) φοβηθῆτε (you should fear) αὐτούς (them); οὐδὲν (nothing) γάρ (for) ἐστιν (is) κεκαλυμμένον (concealed) ὃ (which) οὐκ (not) ἀποκαλυφθήσεται (will be revealed), καὶ (or) κρυπτὸν (hidden) ὃ (which) οὐ (not) γνωσθήσεται (will be known).
Incredible, isn't it? A Thomas logion gets split up again by the Synoptics, as so often happens, e.g. in
viewtopic.php?p=119091#p119091
They don't like the word 'hidden / hiding place' in it so they replace it by 'bed' (which Matthew naturally ditches, as he so often does) but a verse with that words precedes or follows both parts that they split from Thomas into their texts. Not for Mark, because he doesn't have the second part. So out of the 26 occurrences of the word '
hidden' in the Synoptics, 5 of those are directly adjacent to this little story
Playing the devil's advocate, Thomas would also have needed to combine the two parts of lamp and rooftops, 5 chapters apart each for Luke as well as Matthew, get inspired by the word 'hidden' adjacent to each of them, and construct his logion the way it is.
And happen to use a general word for "measure", out of a possible many dozens, that also happens to be exactly identical to the word for 'ear'
The verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke for the second part and the verse that precedes is, is frightening. Haunting. And the Thomasine ear of the rooftops (
said IS he-who you will hear [dop] he in your ear in the other ear proclaim [dop] he from-upon your(PL.PL) roof) gets neatly divided between Luke and Matthew with the hearing for the former and the speaking for the latter in their copy of the rooftops.
And naturally, the preceding verse is in Thomas too, just like 72 of his logia - 2/3rd of his entire text - are to be found in the canonicals; it is Thomas logion 6 with just a minor twist
I have said it before and I will say it again: whoever wrote Matthew did that at the same time while he was copying Marcion and made that into the Luke as we know it - this is a fine case as well for cherry picking from Thomas and dividing something between the two of them. Just like the birth narrative it aims to attest by differentiation: if you and I tell the exact same story then chances are that we planned it all in advance because that's too good to be true. But if we deviate to a good extent it is likely that its core, that which we share, "is true"
This is what textual criticism leads me to, and it is impossible that Thomas saw this mess, copied it, and decided that it would be cunningly clever to use the word ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ as a vague homonym meaning either ear or measure, thus playing a word joke on the canonicals - apart from many other particulars to this logion alone.
The issue with biblical academic is that they have turned one single assumption into all of their vision and strategy: "we have the NT, and all we need to do now is to go backwards in one straight line to the source". But it doesn't work that way, because it didn't happen that way, and the entire history of Churchianity is full of facts attesting to that, so I don't get where this omphaloskepsis comes from: it is evident that there was a battle of diverging and opposing texts straight from the very start. Yes, the Church claims from the very start that it is them who were first and who are telling the truth, but that is exactly identical to Paul emphasising that he is not lying: highly likely, the opposite of that is true
Marcion was right and the Church lied, of course: Marcion's source was Thomas and the Church knew that, so in order to hijack the words of Marcion they also ripped the content of Thomas and slammed it into their own context.
That is what happened, and it led to a very fragile compromise of reusing verbatim words in a Churchian context. Not too many of them because then plagiarism would give away Thomasine origins, like the word 'hidden' in this example: it is left out of the content but then the content itself is placed in an entire context of "hidden". The opposite thing is implemented for e.g. the Thomasine theme of "making the two one" where the words are used yet in an entirely different context, namely that of God creating the first humans (and Mark screws up royally there, which Matthew fixes later).
Those are the two strategies: reuse the verbatim content in a quite different context, or imply the content by absorbing it into your own context.
So what we must do, in biblical textual criticism, is not only look at verbatim agreement or disagreement where either outer end indicates a binary Yes or No: in stead of doing that, we must sit in the middle, because more agreement isn't always the goal when copying from Thomas or Marcion.
When the canonicals copy from Thomas or Marcion - unless it is in supposedly relatively harmless instances such as the blessed womb and breasts (
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7711&p=119209) - they are not after literally copying a source, they want to obfuscate the very fact that those are their source - while copying it.
So we must switch our attitude and thinking from source textual criticism to destination textual criticism: it is not the source that drives our texts, it is the destination that they had in mind - and a large part of that destination was to move far enough away from that source