From: "Stevan Davies" To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 21:08:45 +0000 Subject: Re: Thomas and the Synoptics Reply-to: miser17@epix.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) Sender: owner-crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Precedence: bulk I really don't think I can keep this up, Antonio. You're using a shit translation and reject the Q hypothesis and so are flying blind. What you need is an interlinear Greek-English, or maybe Greek-Swedish version coupled with reference to the WWW Bible Gateway which will give you several translations. The best IMO are NIV and RSV. The "Five Gospels" version is shit. It's tendentious, careless about precise meaning, prone to put things into whatever hip vernacular a bunch of middle aged college professors think is 'cool' and politically correct all at the same time. I honestly don't know of any purpose it serves at all, especially as it doesn't even pretend to give accurate renditions but hip paraphrases (college professor hip). > I don't see much difference between the synoptics "planted" > and Thomas seed that falls on "tilled" soil. The synoptics > presuppose that the farmer has tilled the earth before the > planting. Thomas only makes that more explicit. Well, I don't know about Sweden, but maybe you do have dandilions like we do. The difference is between Thomas' "the dandilion seed fell on tilled soil" and the synoptics "he planted the dandilion seed." It does make a difference! > > 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 > > 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 = 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? It's not that difficult. I explained in detail why "nest" means "nest" using Greek giving a parallel usage where it certainly means "nest." Here are versions from the WWW Bible Gateway for Mark 4:32 NIV Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade." RSV yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade." KJV But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. DBY and when it has been sown, mounts up and becomes greater than all herbs, and produces great branches, so that the birds of heaven can roost under its shadow. YLT and whenever it may be sown, it cometh up, and doth become greater than any of the herbs, and doth make great branches, so that under its shade the fowls of the heaven are able to rest.' Since the difference is "perch/roost" Thomas/Mark versus "nest" in Q this is not meaningless. Yet, I suppose, in the absence of Q "nest" in Luke must be Lukan redaction of Matthew. I don't know what else it could be except Luke's access to Oral Tradition. > 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? Both the Thomas version (disciples question Jesus) and the Mark version (double rhetorical question) are commonly attested redactional propensities of those authors. The Q version is standard. Mark has revised something here into his double question... but so has Thomas revised something. > Now, which version is closer to which? First of all, all the > synoptics are unanimous in Jesus being the one who starts > the exchange about the meaning of the Kingdom. This is canonical bias. It also should lead to the conclusion, since Thomas also shows Jesus starting the exchange, therefore Thomas is using the synoptics. But Thomas doesn't. > 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' "Tell us WHAT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS LIKE". I cannot deal with the theory that Thomas takes one phrase from one author and inserts it into a phrase from a second author. Again, Antonio, we are not operating from the same episteme. I just do not believe human authors do this, ever did it, ever will. So, for me, it's just not a possibility. Thomas NEVER uses God in instances like this, preferring either Father or Heaven. This does not show Matthean influence but some vague common interest on the part of Matthew (who is quite inconsistent) and Thomas (almost completely consistent) in avoiding "God" in such passages. Hence Arnal's argument that the one time "God" is used in Thomas it MUST refer to a Demiurge. > 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. Mark has plant. Matthew took plant from Mark. Luke took tree from Q. Mark got plant from somewhere or other. Thomas has plant. Plant was probably original (especially since tree is nonsensical). Thus Thomas is not shown thereby to have taken plant from Matthew. > Take a beat at another verse... No. This is getting too time consuming and, since basic presuppositions aren't shared (you deny Q, you use Five Gospels, your view of authorial technique is not rational IMO) it's not going to get us anywhere. > > 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". > 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. This whole matter leaves my opinion of His Excellency's ability at argumentation unchanged from what it was in 1982 (cf. GTCW). Steve