The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 1:51 pm
[EDIT: This is the original OP, but a slightly more elaborate one views it from a canonical standpoint: viewtopic.php?p=125462#p125462]
Thomas logion 33:
Focus on the italic part, especially on the bold. The joke is evident: you don't light a lamp and hold it to your ear (ya dummy!), you hold it to your eye.
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 ear, ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ, the word that is so very present throughout Thomas:
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.
In the canoniclas, this word right here is translated quite differently
You don't light a lamp and then hold it to your ear: to your eye, ya dummy! It is hilarious, but they didn't get it. The Coptic word is ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ, https://coptic-dictionary.org/results.c ... e&lang=any
And as you can see it is a homonym, meaning either ear or 'a measure'. I'm quite familiar with Crum now and he has easily over a dozen words that could mean measure but which get a question mark behind them because he's unsure. I guess he didn't have a sense of humour either
Now it gets even more interesting, because the word in the Synoptics is a Latin loanword, modius.
A modius (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... try=modius) can hold 8.5 litres of grain - and Luke has σκεύει (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... skeu%3Dos0) - a thingy, so to say: a vessel or implement of any kind, Ar., Thuc., etc.:—pl. in collective sense, furniture, house-gear, utensils, chattels
The only residue from Marcion that we have is καλύπτει, "covers". So Marcion also didn't get it - but it is very plausible that he had σκεύει and that Luke just copied it, whereas Mark and Matthew, being written by Romans, inserted the Roman loanword because it's not a very helpful word.
The exact same will happen with yet another Coptic homonym, https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C5883
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.
If Thomas did indeed copy the canonicals, he would have been confronted with two possible choices. He could have just picked 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
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?
They're leading Thomas right to it, aren't they?!
Seriously though, what are the odds that 'hidden / hide' occurs adjacent to this verse? I call that "inspiration"
On a side note: the rooftops didn't get copied along in this place, they got isolated in Luke 12:3 and Matthew 10:27 - how very magical that Thomas also managed to combine that line into his logion, 5 chapters away from these ones!
And what is it there which precedes Luke 12:3, and Matthew 10:27?
Incredible, isn't it? A Thomas logion gets split up again by the Synoptics. 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 in their texts. Not for Mark, because he doesn't have the second part
Playing the devil's advocate, Thomas would have needed to combine these two parts, 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.
The verbatim agreement for the second part and the verse that precedes is, is frightening. Haunting. And the ear gets neatly divided between Luke and Matthew with the hearing for the former and the speaking for the latter.
And what do we find in Marcion? Not the housetops, nor the hearing or speaking in ear - even though that is partially in bold blue in Ben's reconstruction viewtopic.php?p=39319#p39319
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 sane 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"
On a side note: their own invention of dark versus light is attractive, to be honest - Thomas would have liked that, I think, just as he would have loved John's "born from above"
Honestly. A very convincing case for direction of dependence, and association by inspiration. But there are people who will just shrug this all off and make clownesque comments instead
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
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 italic part, especially on the bold. The joke is evident: you don't light a lamp and hold it to your ear (ya dummy!), you hold it to your eye.
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 ear, ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ, the word that is so very present throughout Thomas:
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.
In the canoniclas, this word right here is translated quite differently
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.
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.
You don't light a lamp and then hold it to your ear: to your eye, ya dummy! It is hilarious, but they didn't get it. The Coptic word is ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ, https://coptic-dictionary.org/results.c ... e&lang=any
And as you can see it is a homonym, meaning either ear or 'a measure'. I'm quite familiar with Crum now and he has easily over a dozen words that could mean measure but which get a question mark behind them because he's unsure. I guess he didn't have a sense of humour either
Now it gets even more interesting, because the word in the Synoptics is a Latin loanword, modius.
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)
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)?
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).
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)?
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).
A modius (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... try=modius) can hold 8.5 litres of grain - and Luke has σκεύει (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... skeu%3Dos0) - a thingy, so to say: a vessel or implement of any kind, Ar., Thuc., etc.:—pl. in collective sense, furniture, house-gear, utensils, chattels
The only residue from Marcion that we have is καλύπτει, "covers". So Marcion also didn't get it - but it is very plausible that he had σκεύει and that Luke just copied it, whereas Mark and Matthew, being written by Romans, inserted the Roman loanword because it's not a very helpful word.
The exact same will happen with yet another Coptic homonym, https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C5883
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.
If Thomas did indeed copy the canonicals, he would have been confronted with two possible choices. He could have just picked 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
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).
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).
They're leading Thomas right to it, aren't they?!
Seriously though, what are the odds that 'hidden / hide' occurs adjacent to this verse? I call that "inspiration"
On a side note: the rooftops didn't get copied along in this place, they got isolated in Luke 12:3 and Matthew 10:27 - how very magical that Thomas also managed to combine that line into his logion, 5 chapters away from these ones!
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).
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).
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. 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 in their texts. Not for Mark, because he doesn't have the second part
Playing the devil's advocate, Thomas would have needed to combine these two parts, 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.
The verbatim agreement for the second part and the verse that precedes is, is frightening. Haunting. And the ear gets neatly divided between Luke and Matthew with the hearing for the former and the speaking for the latter.
And what do we find in Marcion? Not the housetops, nor the hearing or speaking in ear - even though that is partially in bold blue in Ben's reconstruction viewtopic.php?p=39319#p39319
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 sane 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"
On a side note: their own invention of dark versus light is attractive, to be honest - Thomas would have liked that, I think, just as he would have loved John's "born from above"
Honestly. A very convincing case for direction of dependence, and association by inspiration. But there are people who will just shrug this all off and make clownesque comments instead