From: "Stevan Davies" To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:28:45 +0000 Subject: Re: Thomas and Synoptics Davies: > >> 1. Then since it agrees sometimes with Matthew and sometimes with > >> Luke one has greater control of both redactors' methods of > >> revision vis a vis Q because where either has material in common > >> with Thomas it is presumptively original. > > Bill Arnal replied: > >There's a BIG problem with this, especially if we're talking > >here about textual details. The problem is the FACT that > >Thomas does contain bits of what appear to be demonstrable > >redactional wording on Luke's part and on Matthew's, i.e., > >places where Thomas agrees with Lukan or Matthean departures > >from Mark's wording. "Bits" is a problem all by itself. Means that Thomas meant to get rid of ALL redaction but erred in tiny BITS. Calling for the question why was Thomas doing this, and why was he so incredibly good at it that "Bits" is all that he failed to catch. > >It is not impossible to explain these source-criticially: ONE > > Luke and Matthew are making such changes > >in light of or under the influence of oral traditions which > >antedate Mark; TWO > > or they are making revisions in light of > >Thomas; THREE > >or even they actually did not introduce such > >revisions but textual corruption of Mark erased Mark's > >agreement with them. FOUR > > But the most usual explanation for this > >phenomenon among defenders of Thomasine independence is that > >the SINGLE and LATE text we have of the complete Thomas is > >slightly corrupt. This is of course Patterson's argument and > >it makes a HUGE amount of sense. But not to forget the other possibilities. What we have are a variety of possibilities and if Patterson says FOUR to the exclusion of the others he makes the same error as the dependence theorists that if FIVE is a possibility (Thomas took the material from the synoptics) then FIVE is the necessary conclusion. > > The text MUST be corrupt, a > >priori, and it's easiest to imagine that one of the ways it > >was corrupted was, like other early Christian texts, through > >assimilation to better-known writings, such as, of course, > >Matthew and Luke. If so, then THIS means that "where either > >has material in common with Thomas" it COULD as easily be a > >case of textual assimilation as of preservation of a > >pre-redactional original. One must always bear in mind that what scholars claim is "redaction" in the sense that it is not in Mark does NOT mean that this is "redaction" in the sense that Luke's agenda propelled him to make the changes. The latter sense of "redaction" will compell Patterson's refutation, but I suspect that there are very very few instances of it. Antonio wrote: > Now, now Bill. This way of explaining what > appears to be Matthean and Lukan redactional > elements in Thomas sounds to me like a way of > only explaining away the problem without having > a single shred of evidence for such an an assertion. He's just giving various options. I do notice that it is true that if one says that the problem of intertextual similarities can be accounted for by various solutions then one is said to be explaining away the problem. But I think that those who say so just are paying no attention. There are various REAL solutions that REALLY occur in REALITY here and there. To pick one and say that is the only one period is incompetence. Patterson doesn't do this. But I do accuse the dependence forces of doing this. > Patterson's argument that coptic Thomas has later > been assimilated to the sayings in Matthew and Luke > may sound good to some but not to me. Until > Patterson (or you) can show the world some more > scraps of a greek or a new copy of a coptic Thomas > this will only be SPECULATION. Oh my my my my. Antonio, if what Bill wrote is speculation and therefore to be dismissed entirely, well that is the end of history. I remind you that the canon was floating around for 250 years or so after the Gk Ms were written and so, sigh, pay attention here please, it would be more likely that the Cpt material would show that influence than the Gk. History as a social science, not the end of the world... just so you don't get all worried. > In fact I think Stephen > C Carlson earlier gave us some examples where the > sayings in coptic Thomas actually DIVERGE more from > the same sayings in greek Thomas in the opposite > direction - i.e AWAY from Matthew or Luke. I don't recall anything substantial having been shown. > The saying > about "the speck in your brothers eye" is one such > example. So what we in fact have are real texts - greek > Thomas and coptic Thomas - that so far as I can see > talk against Patterson's argument. What has Patterson > to offer - nothing! I have no idea what your argument is here. Please try and be specific and spell out your points. Some of us are just not so smart as you and have to have things explained. And could we have some examples to discuss, please? Not just generalities. Steve