From: "Antonio Jerez" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Thomas and the Synoptics (was SV: Patterson and Thomas) Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 10:41:36 +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 KAA24330 Sender: owner-crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Precedence: bulk ---------- > Fr=E5n: Michael Davies > Till: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com > =C4mne: SV: Patterson and Thomas > Datum: den 7 maj 1997 19:48 Stevan Davies replied to Antonio Jerez: > Well, here's one drawn at random from Antonio's list. >=20 > Luke > 19It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in=20 > his garden. It grew and=20 > became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches."=20 >=20 > Matt > like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field.=20 > 32Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows,=20 > it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that > the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."=20 >=20 > Mark > 31It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you=20 > plant in the ground.=20 > 32Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all=20 > garden plants, with such=20 > big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade."=20 >=20 > Thomas > "It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of > all seeds. But when it falls on tilled soil, it produces a great > plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky." I was actually using the translation in "The five gospels", but I don't think it makes much difference if yours (NRV?) or mine is used Stevan wrote: > Matthew seems to be conflating Q and Mark with his > largest plant + becomes a tree and Thomas. =20 Here I already start having problems with your methodology. Why bring in Q in the matter? I haven't done that at all in my study. I have only looked at the texts that we have available. First of all Mark 4:30-31 and parallels are usually not attributed to Q by Q scholars. Secondly Q is a hypothetical document. > Mk/Mt/Lk have planted vs. Thomas falls on tilled soil > [which, before we hear that tilled soil is a gnostic motif,=20 > I hasten to report is the botanical habit of mustard, which=20 > is a colonizer that is the first-generation of plants that > take advantage of disturbed soil. Re: sowing,=20 > quite the contrary, it is weeded out. Why sown in Mark? Because > that's what Mark is writing chapter 4 about: sowing seeds]. I don't see much difference between the synoptics "planted" and Thomas seed that falls on "tilled" soil. The synoptics=20 presuppose that the farmer has tilled the earth before the planting. Thomas only makes that more explicit.=20 variants to no effect and are ornithologically sensible. Perched > in Luke probably means "nest" (kataskynosen) > so also in "the birds of the air have their nests" (kataskynoseis). > Reason for translation "perched" ("nest" in Nestle-Aland) is that=20 > birds don't nest in mustard plants although they can certainly > shelter beneath them and so the translator is correcting scriptural > ignorance of ornithology. In "The five gospels" we find the words "roost" in Matthew and Luke, and "nest" in Mark, and "shelter" in Thomas. I think the most natural translation of the word in Mt and Luke is something like roost =3D the birds sit down on the branches of the tree to find rest and shelter. "Perch" in Thomas and "nest" in Mark mean about the same thing. But maybe the experts on greek on the list like Stephen C Carlson knows which is most probable? =20 > If we are not wholly in error in assuming that Jesus actually=20 > observed nature, Thomas' "falls on tilled soil" vs. "sown", "large=20 > plant" vs. "largest of plants" and "tree," "birds shelter" vs.=20 > "birds nest" are all correct in terms of natural fact vs the=20 > alternate versions giving it, one might say, a certain presumption > of authenticity. It's not the smallest of all seeds and if it weren't > for the fact that Jesus is God and so Knows All Things one might > understand his not taking the orchid family into consideration. >=20 > In any event, the Thomas version is closer to Mark than it is to=20 > Luke. You say so, Steve. Now look at my way of reasoning and why I claim that GThomas 20 is closer to the versions in Mt and Luke than to Mark. To be fair you should use the whole of Thomas 20. Thomas 20a starts like this: The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us what Heaven's Kingdom is like". Luke 13:18 goes: What is The Kingdom of God like? What does it remind me of? (I don't use Five gospels translation of God's imperial rule, since I don't like it. I prefer the standard translation in this instance). Mt 13:31 says: The Kingdom of Heaven is like... Mk 4:30 says: To what should we compare the Kingdom of God, or what parable should we use for it? Now, which version is closer to which? First of all, all the synoptics are unanimous in Jesus being to one who starts the exchange about the meaning of the Kingdom. Thomas (like in some other instances) reverses this and makes it a question or demand of the disciples to Jesus. Secondly Thomas seems to have conflated the versions in Mt and Luke. He picks "the Kingdom of Heaven" in Mt and inserts it into Luke's "What is the Kingdom of God like?", which becomes Thomas=B4 "Tell us WHAT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS LIKE". In total this verse in a lot closer to Mt and Luke than Mark. Only Mt uses Kingdom of Heaven. And so over to Thomas 20b and parallels. Thomas says:=20 He said to them: It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds. But when it falls on prepared soil, it produces a large plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky." Luke 13:19 says: Then he would say: It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and tosses into =20 his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the=20 sky roosted in its branches."=20 Mt 13:31 reads: He put another parable before them with these words: ...is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field.=20 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet, when it has grown up,=20 it is the largest of garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that the=20 birds of the sky come and roost in its branches."=20 =20 Mark 4:31-32 reads: Consider the mustard seed: When it is sown on the ground, though it is the smallest of all seeds on the earth, yet when it is sown, it comes up , and becomes the biggest off all garden plants, and produces branches, so that the birds of the sky can nest in its shade. In the first part of Thomas 20b, Luke is closest to Thomas version. Both Luke and Thomas say that "Jesus said" though in a slighly different form; "He said to them" in Thomas and "Then he would say" in Luke. I think the influence goes from Luke to Thomas. In the second part of Thomas 20b Luke and Mt are certainly much closer in wording and word order than Mark. Consider Thomas: IT IS LIKE A MUSTARD SEED, with Luke: IT IS LIKE A MUSTARD SEED, with Mt: IS LIKE A MUSTARD SEED, with Mark: MUSTARD SEED Here Luke and Thomas are again closest. Mark is by far the one who has least likeness in wording and word order to Thomas. Now consider the next part of the verse: Thomas: ..IT IS THE SMALLEST OF ALL SEEDS Mt: ..IT IS THE SMALLEST OF ALL SEEDS Mk : ..IT IS THE SMALLEST OF ALL SEEDS on earth Luke: nothing Here Mt and Mark are closest to Thomas, though Mt has a slight edge since he doesn't take over Mark's ON EARTH. To me Thomas seems to have taken over Matthews version. Also look at Thomas 20c: Thomas: it produces A LARGE PLANT Mt: it is the largest of all garden PLANTS Mark: and becomes the biggest of all garden PLANTS In this instance there is a draw. I think Thomas could have taken over the PLANT either from Matthew or Mark. But the important thing to notice is that PLANT is there in Matthew for Thomas to take over. So I think in total Thomas 20 favours the view that Thomas has taken over the versions found in Mt and Luke, rather than the version in Mark. I can even be as magnaminous as to concede that the evidence is indecisive in this particular verse, but I don't really think I have to. But let's say it to make Stevan happy. Anyway the score is still FOUR TO FIFTYTHREE (if way say that Steve has the better argument in this case) or THREE to FIFTYTHREE (if we say that it is indicisive) in favour of a dependence between Thomas and Luke/Mt. Your welcome Steve, to come with more arguments to challenge my and the majority position on Thomas and the Synoptics. Take a beat at another verse... > Antonio wrote: > "I also talked this evening with the great GThomas expert in > Sweden - the bishop emeritus Bertil Gaertner. Gaertner lives > here in Goeteborg. I told him a bit about what the americans > are up to on GThomas and specially Stevan Davies "ground- > breaking" GThomas-Mark theory. Gaertner 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." Stevan replied: > Will I be wrong in assuming that His Excellency hasn't actually > read the arguments that he rejects but has been given a=20 > tendentious precis of them by somebody who also rejects=20 > them without having read them? I shouldn't be surprised to find > that this is the state of the art in European Thomas study. >=20 > They are publicly available on the Thomas Homepage, but I'm > sure His Excellency has enough information to go on without > bothering to glance at them. No, His Excellency has not read your new article on Thomas/ Mark, but I think His Excellency knows pretty well by know the arguments that have been used (mostly on the other side of the Atlantic) to claim that GThomas is early and independent of the Synoptics. Your hypothesis though is of course a new twist to the tale, and I told His Excellency where he could find your article if he might be interested. But I also told His Excellency not to bother too much since Steve's article and his argumentation is (in my humble opinion) a worse mess than the preceding theories. I actually have read most of Steve's article by know, but I also said before that he runs aground almost from the beginning by repeating premisses for his search that are mostly built on sand. Antonio antonio.jerez@goteborg.mail.telia.com=20