Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 00:07:14 To: miser17@epix.net, crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: critique of Stevan Davies Neotestamentica article 1 At 09:24 10/7/97 +0000, Stevan Davies wrote: >> Therefore, granting Stevan's structural connection between Th13 and Mk8:27-33, >> I am struck by an even more striking similarity in the Matthean parallel. >> Positing that Mark used Thomas is more trouble than it is worth -- it does >> not present a clean explanation of Matthew's version under Markan priority. >> Stephen Carlson > >[I hope this reply isn't a duplicate of one that I tried, but >probably failed, to mail earlier] > >1. I assume with some citation of external argumentation that Thomas >is independent. >2. I assume that Matthew is dependent on Mark. >3. Therefore when Matthew happens to revise Mark in a way that can >remind one of Thomas this is simply irrelevant. >4. I am unable to argue cases 1 and 2 thoroughly in each article I >write. The general difficulty with the thesis that Mark is dependent on Thomas, is that Thomas doesn't look Markan and Mark doesn't look Thomasine. When we bring the other synoptics into account, the distance between Thomas and Mark appears even larger. If the thesis of Thomasine Priority is correct, I expect that Mark's sayings would diverge somewhat from Thomas, and Matthew's and Luke's to diverge even further. Thus, a reasonable prediction of Thomasine Priority is that the synoptic tradition should appear closest to Thomas in Mark and less so in Matthew and Luke. This is not the case. In fact, it is *consistently* (with very few exceptions) not the case. It is perfectly acceptable to adopt whatever premisses as was done in Stevan's article. However, there should not be a contradiction between the first two premisses and the conclusion. If there is a literary relationship between Mark and Thomas, then one of the two premisses (Thomasine non-dependence and Markan priority over Matthew) has to go. This is because Matthew (and Luke too) is a middle term between Mark and Thomas. It is obvious that Mark and Matthew agree extensively with each other against Thomas. They are very similar to each other, yet so removed from Thomas that scholars such as Quispel and Patterson argue that Thomas is in fact independent of the synoptics. (Actually, I prefer to write "non-dependence," because to me independence means mutual non-dependence, which contradicts the conclusion of the article.) In examining the relationship between Thomas and one of the synoptics against either of the others, I am struck, as well as Antonio, that there are many more contacts and agreements with Matthew and Luke against Mark than with Mark against either Matthew or Luke. Thus, the relative lack of agreements between Thomas and Mark as against Matthew (or Luke) with the presence of agreements between Mark and Matthew against Thomas and agreements between Thomas and Matthew against Mark, imply that Matthew is a "middle term" or "connecting link" between Mark and Thomas. Coincidence as a possibility (point #3) is ruled out, since by random chance there should be many more agreements against Matthew. If Matthew is a middle term, then generally (without postulating additional, hypothetical sources) one of four solutions obtains: 1. Mk -> Mt -> Th (Thomas dependent on Matthew, who used Mark) 2. Mk -> Mt <- Th (Matthew conflates Thomas and Mark) 3. Mk <- Mt -> Th (Mark, Thomas are independent derivations of Matthew) 4. Mk <- Mt <- Th (Mark used Matthew, who used Thomas) Given the very close relationship between Matthew and Mark and the lack of extensive utilization of Thomas, option #2 should be ruled out. That Matthew should correct Mark with Thomas when Mark gives testimony, yet ignore Thomas or heavily redact Thomas when Mark does not give testimony shows an inconsistent estimation of Thomas for a Matthew who conflates Mark and Thomas. Furthermore, conflation may explain occasional similarities in phraseology, but not the structural similarity between Matthew and Th13 . Under the assumption of Thomasine non-dependence, options #1 and #3 are ruled out. And under the premiss of Markan Priority over Matthew, options #3 and #4 are ruled out. This means that the combination of Thomasine non-dependence, Markan Priority over Matthew, and Markan dependence on Thomas simply cannot account for the pattern of evidence. Likewise, Luke too is a middle term between Mark and Thomas (especially Luke). Thus, the combination of Thomasine non-dependence, Markan Priority over Luke, and Markan dependence on Thomas is mutually contradictory. Therefore, given the contacts between Matthew or Luke and Thomas against compared to the relative lack of contacts between Thomas and Mark against the other synoptics, it is very difficult to reconcile Mark's use of Thomas and the standard assumption of the Two Source Hypothesis, especially its foundational pillar of Markan Priority. In fact, it appears that the much-maligned Griesbach Hypothesis is the most compatible of the synoptic theories with the idea of that the synoptics are dependent on Thomas. For the most part, Matthew and Mark are so similar compared to Thomas that many of Stevan Davies' observations are still valid. Matthew too has a secrecy motif (inherited from Mark on the 2SH). Finally, the stronger structural parallels between Matthew and Thomas versus Mark and Thomas are much more easily explained by Matthean dependence on Thomas than by Markan dependence on Thomas. The Griesbach Hypothesis has the edge of the other major theory involving Matthean independence, Augustine, because Luke is also a middle term between Mark and Thomas. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35