Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 00:24:51 To: "William E. Arnal" , "Crosstalk (list)" From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: Thomas -- text relationships I knew I should not have been away from computer for a weekend. ;-) At 11:04 1/31/98 -0500, William E. Arnal wrote: >Anyway, here's a list of all of the Thomas sayings extant in >both Greek and Coptic. I've placed an asterisk beside the >handful of sayings which actually suggest any results. My thanks to Bill for taking the trouble to prepare this list. Unfortunately, my own notes were lost when I recently moved, so will only offer my own quibbles. First, I would like to state a brief word on why we are engaging in this enterprise in the first place. One of the least convincing explanations for the presence of apparent Matthean and Lukan redaction in Thomas (which strongly point to dependence) is the explanation that the Coptic text assimilated over the course of copying and in translation in these specific places. My view is that this is speculative and, in fact, there is no corroboration for this explanation in the extant textual tradition of Thomas. I also maintained that, if the Greek text is given some value in being more original, the Coptic version exhibits some *dissimilation.* Onto the evidence: >*saying 4: Mark 10:31; Matt 19:30; Matt 20:16; Luke 13:30: [...] >-here, then, the Greek is closer to the Synoptics than is > the Coptic, as a result of the Coptic lacking a chunk of > text --> we might want to consider an abbreviating > tendency on the part of the Coptic, especially since, on > internal, tradition-critical, and stylistic grounds, it > is awfully difficult to maintain that Coptic preserves > the original here >-this therefore strikes me as an instance of Greek Thomas > preserving the original and Coptic Thomas de- > assimilating, as it were, perhaps as a result of an > abbreviating tendency OK. No disagreement here. The Coptic lacks Synoptic material found in the Greek. The observation of an abbreviating tendency is a good one. >*saying 5: Mark 4:22; Matt 10:26; Luke 8:16-17; Luke 12:1-3: >-the only difference between the Coptic and the Greek in > this segment is this: Greek adds a clause to the end of > the saying: "nor buried that will not be raised" [...] >-in either case, this tends to contradict the argument that > Coptic Thomas only shows a trend to de-assimilation, > insofar as, no matter which of the two views you take, > it either shows the originality of the Coptic text, or > its assimilating character Here, the Coptic lacks *non-Synoptic* material found in the Greek. Whether this may be characterized as an "assimilation" is arguable, especially since the issue is the inclusion of Synoptic material lacking in the Greek. >*saying 6: same synoptic parallels as with #5 >-why this is important is that the Coptic has an extra > clause, "and nothing covered will remain without being > uncovered" >-while Mark only has a single clause, Q has a double clause, > adding, and [nothing] hidden that will not be known, But Mark does have a double clause (nothing hidden : made manifest :: nothing secret : come to light). Therefore, no decision. >*saying 30: Matt 18:20 >-saying #30 shows an instance of the Coptic assimilating to > the synoptic text away from the Greek: by Attridge's > reconstruction (BASP 16/3 [1979]): 156 --> in the Greek > there is no reference to "two," whereas Coptic has it, > as per Matt 18:20 Mt18:20 has "two or three in my mine name"; Greek: "only [one]" Coptic "two or one." Both the Greek and Coptic precede with an extra clause "Where there are three," and inclusion of "two" in the Coptic seems dictated by the context rather than a partial assimilation to Matthew. >-on the other hand, Greek agrees with Matthew, against Cop- > tic, in making the first clause negative I'm confused; no clause is negative, and Matthew only has one clause, which is comparable to the second clauses of Thomas. >*saying 36: Q 12:22-29 (slightly diff wording in Matthew and >Luke) >-the Greek and Coptic differ radically here: the Greek has a > long extension lacking in the Coptic, but with strong > parallels to the (likewise extended) Q version >-the extra material in the Greek also has a concluding > phrase utterly absent in synoptic parallels: "As for > you, when you have no garment, what will you put on? Who > might add to your stature? He it is who will give you > your cloak." >-except for the sentence in the middle none of this is even > remotely connected to the Q text This material here is not "utter absent" but reminiscent of Q 12:25 and 28. >-therefore, the Greek, in "adding" material, has "assimi- > lated" to the NT; while the Coptic, by "deleting" > material, has also "assimilated" --> in other words, in > one respect Greek is closer, in another respect Coptic > is closer The Coptic clearly lacks Synoptic material in the Greek and also lacks quasi-Synoptic material in the Greek. >*saying 39b: Matt 10:16b >-Coptic is closer to Matthew's version, although this is not > visible in translation: Matthew uses the definite arti- > cle to modify "snakes" and "doves", as does the Coptic; > P.Oxy, however, does not have the article Fitzmyer's reconstruction of the Greek includes the article, but it is clear that the Greek fragments are not sufficiently preserved to decide either way. >General results: >Greek P.Oxy closer to NT: Saying # 4 >Coptic closer to NT: Saying # 5, 6, 39b >Mixed: some aspects of Greek closer to NT, and some of Cop- > tic: 30, 36 My results: Coptic lacks Synoptic material in Greek: 4, 36 Coptic lacks non-Synoptic material in Greek: 5, 36(?) Coptic closer than Greek to NT: 30(?) Thus, there is no corroboration in the Thomas text tradition that Synoptic material was added to Thomas as posited by Patterson and Davies [Th30 is too problematic and probably changed to clarify the context]. Although Bill terms the lack of non-Synoptic material in the Coptic an "assimilation," this behavior does not support the explanation of the Coptic text's having added Synoptic material. The Coptic in two clear instances, Th4 and 36, lacks Synoptic material found in the Greek. This supports my comments about divergence, but no all forms of divergence. It is, however, evident that the Coptic text is more streamlined than the Greek. If so, this may indicate that material has been lost in Thomasine tradition. This tends to weaken the negative inference from a general lack of Synoptic redaction in Thomas to conclude that Thomas is independent, because that redaction may have been omitted. Thus, there may some cases in which the extant Thomas was edited to remove clear signs of dependence, but I know that possibility as well as the extant Thomas being edited to introduce clear signs of dependences, as Patterson claims. 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