From: "Antonio Jerez" To: Subject: critique of Stevan Davies Neotestamentica article 2 Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:34:00 +0100 ...continued critique of Stevan's Neitestamentica articles: Next in his first article Stevan gives us a first example from GThomas (saying 65-66 "the wicked tenants") that he thinks show that Mark is dependent on Thomas. The only problem with Stevan's discussion 65-66 is that the arguments he gives have more to do with the larger problem of the eventual dependence or independece of Thomas from ALL the synoptics in this parable. What Stevan is trying to show is that Thomas, with his deallegorised version of the parable, must antedate ALL the synoptics. Stevan doesn't give any arguments showing that Mark's version is closer to Thomas than the other synoptics. In fact Mark isn't. The problem with this parable is the very disparate "evidence" in it - sometimes Mark has a word in common with Thomas, sometimes Matthew has a word or phrase in common, sometimes Luke. But on the whole Mark and Luke are closest to the version in Thomas. So in itself, with this first example, Stevan has not shown that Mark is closer to Mt/Luke - just what he perceives as a direction of influence going from Thomas to the synoptic tradition. Next Stevan makes a study of GTh 65 (Peter's confession) and claims to find a striking structural similarity in this scene with Mark 8:27-30. Stevan writes: "Could the Thomas version be a revision of the story we find in Mark? I see no reason to think so. Matthew and Luke show how Mark's story could be revised in order to praise a disciple rather than to condemn one; Thomas does not revise in this manner at all. Further there is no sign that Thomas has revised any other saying in Mark." Like a sign from heaven I happened to receive Stephen Carlson's critique of Stevan Davies on just this point this morning . It is obvious Stevan has shown a blindness to the similarities between Mark and Thomas in this episode without noticing that Matthew and Thomas are even more similar in structure. Just as Matthew has an episode where Jesus praises a disciple who has given the correct answer (Peter), Thomas has Jesus praising another disciple (Thomas) at exactly the same spot in the structure as in Matthew's version. I refer to Stephen's brilliant study for further details. This episode actually talks heavily against Mark using Thomas. If anything it shows a litterary connection between Matthew and Thomas . In which direction can of course be debated, but I agree with Stephen that the most natural direction of influence is Matthew ---> Thomas. I may also add in connection with Davies study of GTh 13 that he strays far away into a long, long study on everything from what might be Markan redactions, the different views on christology in the NT traditions and Thomas, and a lot, lot more. Stevan also claims that Mark 8:27-30 is a kind of parody on GTh 13. I think Stevan is wrong. I think I could argue with more justification that Thomas is a parody on the same scene in Matthew. Stevan also uses Theodore Weeden's study on Mark, "Traditions in conflict" to show that Mark may be using his "parable secret" to hit back against the Thomas Christians. Unfortunately Weeden's argumentation and his theories about the purpose of Mark are highly faulty. I hope to return further on with separate comments on this. I end my comments on Stevan's study on GTh 13 with a citation from the article: " It seems impossible that these two (GTh 13 and Mark 8:27) could be coincidentally so similar. Either one of them is a revision of the other, or both are revisions of some third unknown version." Stevan forgot to mention another alternative that in view of Stephen's study seem a lot more plausible - that Mark did not revise either Thomas or Matthew, but that Thomas revised Matthew! The third and final example of supposed Markan derivations from Thomas that Stevan gives in his article is GTh 22 (Mark 10:13-16). Again Stevan really doesn't deal with the real problem: are there anything in Mark's version that is closer to Thomas than the other synoptics? In fact there is no such thing. The three synoptics are exactly in the same relation in wording and word order to Thomas. Stevan's longranging discussion on GTh 22 is largely irrelevant to the problem he is supposed to study - if Mark used Thomas. I counted a lot of "ifs" and "mays" but absolutely not anything really substantial. Just to give a few examples: "Mark MAY have severed Thomas 22 into three component parts..." "It MAY be the case that Mark took an odd methaporical reference in Thomas 22c..." "...Mark MAY have transformed it into a commentary on marriage and divorce in 10:2-9..." "Thus Mark MAY have revised Thomas 22a..." As should be well known to anybody acquainted with exegetics, with a little redaction criticism, a little imagination and a lot of "ifs" and "mays" you can argue for almost any position. I think Stevan knows that better than anyone since he has told a participant on this list at least on one occasion that he could argue for almost any hypothesis with his exegetical skills. Here is a good example. In sum the three examples Stevan Davies brings up in his first article bring little substance to the case he tries to prove - that Mark used Thomas. To be continued.... Antonio antonio jerez antonio.jerez@swipnet.se