From: "Antonio Jerez" To: "William Arnal" Cc: Subject: Re: Thomas and Q Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 13:45:13 +0200 ---------- > Fr=E5n: William Arnal > Till: Antonio Jerez > Kopia: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com > =C4mne: Re: Thomas and Q > Datum: den 10 maj 1997 04:03 >=20 >=20 > On Fri, 9 May 1997, Antonio Jerez wrote: >=20 > > case no consistency in Thomas use of Q or Q:s use of Thomas. > > My impression so far is that Thomas in that case is taking up > > material from Q (or viceversa) which doesn't fit with most > > Q-scholars reconstruction of the original Q. This is because > > Thomas has in some Q sayings has material that Q scholars > > see as Mattean redaction of Q or Lukan redaction of Q. I think > > Bill Arnal might have more to say on this, since he is the=20 > > expert on this field. William Arnal replied:=20 > Basically, Thomas' actual use of Q is not, I think, the point that > Davies is making. I certainly don't think Thomas used Q, or vice > versa (as I argue in my HTR piece); Koester tentatively suggested > something like this at one point, and then pretty quicklt reversed > himself: there's also nothing to sustain such a view. > The issue with Q is this: since Matthew and Luke almost > certainly used a common source, a source composed almost exclusively > of sayings material, the material that appears in these two gospels > that does NOT appear in Mark is not necessarily original to those > two gospels. In other words: just because Matthew and Luke have > something that Mark doesn't have, does not mean that any other > source having it necessarily got from Matthew or Luke. The > invocation of Q is a way of asserting that sayings material -- which > Mark actually uses quite sparingly -- predated Mark itself even when > it only appears in later sources. So the fact that Thomas, a sayings > collection, may possess more material in common with Matthew and > Luke is no surprise, since these two gospels make greater use of a > prior sayings tradition than did Mark. MOREOVER, in some places, > where Thomas appears to agree with Matthew and/or Luke against Mark, > it is clear that Matthew and/or Luke are drawing their versions from > a source other than Mark or in conjunction with Mark (e.g., Q; but > other sources are possible, if not demonstrable the way Q is): that > source, or its prototype, may then be the source of the Thomas > version. The copiousness of Matthean or Lukan parallels to Thomas > demonstrates nothing beyond a common vault of tradition (oral, > documentary, whatever) that may surpass the vault of tradition > common to Thomas and Mark, or (alternatively) may surpass the > extent of Mark's use of Thomas. If one wishes to show dependence, we > need a pattern of Matthean or Lukan REDACTION appearing in Thomas to > an extent beyond what we might expect from scribal assimilation. And > that pattern is simply not there. Well said and well explained Bill. I agree with you that Thomas could in theory have used another source (similar to Q) that Q also drew on. But we don't have any source like that available so, so to posit that Thomas used that hypothetical source will again take us into the realm of speculation. What we do have on the other hand are sources like Matthew and Luke that very much show likeness in wording and word order with a lot of sayings in Thomas, something that is almost nil in comparison with Mark. Contrary to Stevan Davies I do not see it as impossible at all that the ones who wrote coptic Thomas drew mostly from Matthew and Luke. And while I don't rule out the possibility that Thomas might have drawn on an earlier source than Matthew and Luke, I find almost nothing that tells that Thomas drew on a source like Mark or viceversa. In fact a close study of the list of parallels I have given on CrossTalk should make clear to almost anybody with eyes to see with and a working brain that Thomas could have drawn on almost anything except Mark (or viceversa). I reread Stevans article (first part) today and I find it just incredible how a scholar can come up with a hypothesis like his based on such slim evidence. His only "real" evidence is supposed connections between Thomas 13, 22 and 65-66, which he thinks shows that Thomas could only have taken over these sayings from GMark. But as I noticed again these supposed connections between Thomas and Mark in these particular sayings are so vague that you really have to use your phantasy the way Stevan does not to see that Thomas could just as well have used the versions as found in Matthew or Luke (or with Steve's inverted logic that Matthew and Luke drew on Thomas). I am sure that some of the big names in exegetics like Frans Neirynck or Christopher Tuckett will shoot down Steve's hypothesis pretty easily if they ever take the time - they won't even have to use a big cannon, it will suffice with a blewpipe or a peagun. And, Bill, the question of how much redactional elements from Matthew or Luke we find in Thomas is very much up for discussion, some scholars argue for more others for less. But I think there is no question that there are some redactional elements from Mt/Luke in Thomas - not the least Luke 17:20-21. =20 > > Thomas 26 =3D Luke 6:41-42 ( but also notice the little detail that > > Stephen C Carlson mentioned about Greek Thomas having "in > > your brothers eye" instead of "from your friends eye" in coptic > > Thomas. This is I think a problem for anybody who wants to argue > > that Thomas took over a saying from Q. >=20 > Why is this a problem? In any case, both the Coptic and the Greek > read "brother" -- pekson =3D "your brother". Because in that case we have to imagine the one who wrote greek Thomas taking over one version from Q that said "in your brothers eye" and the one who wrote coptic Thomas taking over a version from Q that said "from your brothers eye". I think it is more logical to assume that the one who wrote greek Thomas took the verse from Luke and that the one who later wrote coptic Thomas (maybe unconciusly) gave us the Matthean version. As Stephen C Carlson's little study of the way of transmission between greek and coptic Thomas seems to indicate, there seems to be some indications that the coptic redactors adjusted the more "lukan" greek Thomas to Matthew. > > Thomas 39 =3D a conflation of both Mt 23:13 and Luke 11:52.=20 > > "The pharisees and the scribes" is closer to Mt and "have taken > > the keys of knowledge" is closer to Luke. >=20 > Right, so as is usual for Q texts, Matthew changes it one way, and > Luke changes it another. The original Q reading will resemble each, > differently, in turn (cf. Matthew's and Luke's treatment of Mark's > "very early . . . when the sun had risen" (16:2, I think). So Q > preserves an earlier version of the saying, which Thomas attests to. > Matthew, independently of Luke, does one thing to it; Luke, > independently of Matthew, does another. This makes FAR more sense > editorially than to imagine that Thomas flips between the two texts > to abstract one meaningless phrase from one, and another from the > other. What is he? An "epitomizer" a la Greisbach-advocates' take on > Mark? So this sort of alternating agreement actually serves as > evidence that Thomas was NOT literarily dependent on the synoptics. =20 I don't rule out at all that coptic Thomas has been conflated from Matthew and Luke a la Griesbach. Remember that there seems to have been at least two redactors at work in the making of Thomas. They had probably both the will and the time to make Thomas the way they wanted it - i e to conflate and redact extensively from primarily Matthew and Luke. John obviously had the will and the time to rework the Synoptics=20 (taking a little "I am" from Mark here and inflating it, taking a healing miracle from Mark and Luke and conflating the details, taking details from all the synoptics resurrection stories and making a different mix) so much that a guy like=20 Stevan Davies cannot see it at all.=20 > > Thomas 69b =3D Luke 6:21 (the macarisms present a problem > > to those who might argue that Thomas has taken over the > > macarisms from Q, since Thomas takes over a saying like > > Mt 5:11 that if I am not totally wrong is not part of the > > reconstucted Q.) >=20 > You are totally wrong. It is part of Q according to any > reconstruction: this is straightforward double tradition. Maybe I have misunderstood the Q scholars reconstruction of Q - but I have so far got the impression that Luke's shorter version of the macarism are said to be more original to Q. Matthew enlarged the original Q macarism with some of his own, and I mean that in that case Thomas has taken over some of the macarisms that Matthew created. > > Thomas 101 =3D a conflation of the versions in Mt 10:37 and > > Luke 14:26. "Cannot be my disciple" is only found in Luke > > and "love father and mother" is only found in Mt. >=20 > As above: "conflation" begs the question, since Matthew and Luke > might have (almost certainly did) redacted a Q saying in different > directions. The question of Thomas conflating the versions in Mt and Luke is plain for anybody to see in "my" hypothesis. The question about Luke or Matthew redacting Q in different ways is only a matter of speculation as long as we don't find a real Q-document. That is a simple fact. =20 Antonio antonio.jerez@goteborg.mail.telia.com