From: "Antonio Jerez" To: Cc: Subject: SV: SV: Patterson and Thomas Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 23:10:31 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by d1o25.telia.com id XAA19173 Sender: owner-crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Precedence: bulk ---------- > Fr=E5n: Stevan Davies > Till: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com > =C4mne: RE: SV: Patterson and Thomas > Datum: den 5 maj 1997 22:40 Stevan=20 > Anyhow, I hope you can make a good case, consciously avoiding > all the little snide ad hominems which tend to make me delete > letters rather than seek to understand them. It would be interesting=20 > to see a good case made. It has taken me three days with a lot of hours spent running back and forth in the NT and GThomas, and filling in different verses with different color markings - but I definitely think it was worth the effort. At least it has shown me how extremly weak is Stevan Davies latest hypothesis that GMark is dependent on GThomas. How a scholar can come to a conclusion like that after REALLY LOOKING AT THE TEXTS is absolutely beyond me. The first thing I tried to do was to see wich verses in GThomas had strong or weaker parallells in the NT. Then I tried to figure out which verse or pericope in the NT had the closest likeness to the version in GThomas. I think it was really revealing, and I also think it is not strange at all that the majority of NT scholars (at least on this side of the Atlantic) think GThomas is dependent on the Synoptics, and specially Matthew and Luke. Here is what I found: Verses in GThomas that look a bit closer to the version in GMark than in GMatthew and GLuke: Thomas 9 =3D Mark 4:2-9 Thomas 35 =3D Mark 3:27 Thomas 47c=3D Mark 2:21 Three parallells! My friends, that is actually all Stevan Davies builds his grand hypothesis for a dependence GMark-Thomas on. Incredible I must say. Now look at the verses in GThomas that look closer to the version in GMatthew and GLuke than on GMark: Thomas 3=3D Luke 17:20-21 Thomas 5 =3D Luke 8:17 Thomas 6=3D Luke 8:17 Thomas 8=3D Mt 13:47-48 Thomas 10=3D Luke 12:49 Thomas 14a=3D Luke 10:8-9 Thomas 14b=3DMt 15:11 Thomas 16=3D Luke 12:51-53 Thomas 20=3DLuke 13:18-19 Thomas 21c=3D Mt 24:42-44 Thomas 24b=3D Mt 6:22-23+Mt 5:15-16 Thomas 26=3D Luke 6:41-42 Thomas 30=3D Mt 18:20 Thomas 31=3D Luke 4:23-24 Thomas 32=3D Mt 5:14 Thomas 33a=3D Mt 10:27 Thomas 33b=3D Luke 10:33 Thomas 34=3D Mt 15:14 Thomas 41=3D Mt 13:10-13 Thomas 44=3D Mt 12:31-32 Thomas 45=3D Mt 7:16 Thomas 46=3D Mt 11:11 Thomas 47b=3D Luke 7:28 Thomas 47c=3D Luke 5:36-39 Thomas 48=3D Mt 17:20 Thomas 54 =3D Luke 17:20 Thomas 55=3D Luke 14:26-27 Thomas 57=3D Mt 13:24-30 Thomas 63=3D Luke 12:16-20 Thomas 64=3D Luke 14:16-24 Thomas 69b=3D Mk 12:1-9 with same parallells in Mt and Luke Thomas 72ab=3D Luke 12:13-14 Thomas 73=3D Mt 9:37-38/Luke 10:2 Thomas 76a=3D Mt 13:44-46 Thomas 76b=3DMt 6:19-21 Thomas 78=3D Mt 11:7-9/Luke 7:24-26 Thomas 86=3D Mt 8:20/Luke 9:58 Thomas 89=3D Luke 11:39-40 Thomas 91c=3D Luke 12:56 Thomas 93=3D Mt 7:6 Thomas 94=3D Mt 7:7/Luke 11:9 Thomas 96=3D Mt 13:33 Thomas 99a=3D Mt 12:47/Luke 8:20 Thomas 99b=3D Mt 12:50 Thomas 101=3D Mt 10:37/Luke 14:26 Thomas 104=3D Luke 5:33 Thomas 106=3D Mt 17:19-20 Thomas 111=3D Mark 13:13 and same parallells in Mt and Luke Thomas 113=3D Luke 17:20-21 In sum we have THREE parallells where GMark is slighly closer to the version in GThomas, contra FIFTYFOUR parallells where GMt and GLuke are slighly or even much closer to the version in GThomas. What do we make of this. I think the conclusion is pretty obvious if logic is involved - the guy who wrote Thomas has almost all the time taken over and conflated or redacted from versions that he found in primarily in GMt and GLuke.=20 I know that Stevan Davies will not that easily concede that his hypothesis is built on nothing more than thin air, but then I challenge him to show me, verse by verse (by the examples I have given above) where he thinks he finds proof that the version in GMark is closer to GThomas than in the THREE instances I have found. I am ready myself to show detail for detail, verse by verse why Stevan has no case at all. I also talked this evening with the great GThomas expert in Sweden - the bishop emeritus Bertil G=E4rtner. G=E4rtner lives here in G=F6teborg. I told him a bit about what the americans are up to on GThomas and specially Stevan Davies "ground- breaking" GThomas-Mark theory. G=E4rtner laughed heartily when he heard about it and said that "you can expect almost anything by now from the americans". He also sends greetings to Steve but wanted me to tell him that Steve is out bicycling both on the question of GThomas gnosticism and Thomas relationship to Mark. Antonio antonio.jerez@goteborg.mail.telia.com