From: "Stevan Davies" To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 20:44:17 +0000 Subject: Re: Thomas and Synoptics 2a This is going to go on for awhile so I'll make two letters out of it. I am happy that Antonio has detailed his reasons for constructing a list of places where Thomas is more like Matthew or Luke than Mark and THEREFORE it may be logically concluded that A) Thomas is dependent on Matthew or Luke or/and B) Mark did not use Thomas. > Mark 4:22 For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, > and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into > the open > Matt 10:26 There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, > or hidden that will not be made known > Luke 8:17 For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, > and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out > into the open > GTh 5b For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, > and there is nothing buried that will not be raised > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Here Luke is closest to Thomas. So close that the first part of > the saying is exactly the same in wording and word order. Disclosed > and revealed are synonymous. ========================== I cannot imagine how you can draw this conclusion. Both Thomas and Q share this proverb with Mark. We have fragments of the Greek of Thomas 5 and 6b and it is substantially different than that of the Q version of the saying (Lk. 12:2 // Mt 10:26). However, the Greek of Thomas 5b (Oxy.Pap. 654.29-30) is in parts identical to Mark 4:22a, and the Greek of Thomas 6b (Oxy.Pap. 654.38-40) shares one key element (faneron) with Mark 4:22b, proving that Mark's version of this proverb is more akin to the Thomas version than it is to the Q version. ======================== > Mark 6:8-13 Take nothing for the journey...Whenever you enter a > house, stay there until you leave that town... > Matt 10:7-13 As you go...heal the sick, raise the dead...Whatever > town or village you enter, search a worthy person there and stay > at his house until you leave > Luke 10: When you enter a town and are welcolmed, eat what is > set before you. Heal the sick who are there and tell them, "The > kingdom of God is near you" > GTh 14b (also greek Thomas) When you go into any region and > walk through the countryside, when people recieve you, eat what > they serve you and heal the sick among them > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Here there is absolutely no question about it - Thomas and Luke > are so close, so close. Stephen C Carlson also pointed out > that the expression "heal the sick among them" is only found in > Luke and Thomas. In greek Thomas with the same greek wording. > Mark has almost nothing in common with Thomas. =========================== No question about it. Thomas and Q (better in the Luke version) have a different saying than exists in Mark. Thus Mark is not dependent on Thomas here (nor did I ever say it was). Except for Farrerites, it is the consensus of scholarship that the Luke // Matthew material against Mk is from Q. So Thomas has a Q saying in it, in fact a lot of Q sayings in it. This is irrelevant vis a vis Mark Thomas. I don't argue, incidentally, that Thomas was the only information Mark had!! ============================ > Mark 7:15 Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going > into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him > unclean > Matt 15:11 What goes into a mans mouth does not make him unclean, > but what comes out of his mouth makes him unclean > GTh 14c For what goes into your mouth will not defile you ; > rather it is what comes out of your mouth that will defile you > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > No question about it here either - the sayings in Matthew and Thomas > are virtually identical. Matthew has only stuck to Mark's more impersonal > " a man" (any man), while Thomas makes the saying more personal > by talking about "your" (own) mouth. Both Thomas and Matthew also > have "mouth" in both parts of the saying. Mark doesn't even mention > the mouth. The "defile" in Thomas could as well be translated as "unclean". ============================ Virtually identical except that Matthew is closer to Mark than to Thomas. The "mouth" business is implied in Mark and spelled out in Matthew//Thomas. Whether this is just coincidental statement of the obvious or dependence upon some known tradition is opaque. Recall that Mark's version cannot say "comes out of your mouth" as he goes on to list a whole bunch of stuff that "comes out" but not by mouth. Here Mark more likely deleted "mouth" than that it is a tendentious change by either Matthew or Mark. ===================== > Mark 6:4 Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in > his own house is a prophet without honor > Matt 13:57 Only in his hometown and in his own house is > a prophet without honor > Luke 4:23-24 ...Physician heal yourself!...No prophet is > accepted in his hometown > GTh 31 (Lambdin translation) No prophet is accepted in his > own village; no physician heals those who know him. > GTh 31 (Klopp-Meyer transl) No prophet is welcome in his home > turf; doctors don't cure those who know them > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > I don't think it is hard to see that Luke and Thomas are by far > closest to each other. Both are virtually identical in "no prophet > is accepted in his hometown". Both Thomas and Luke are also > similar in having a saying about a doctor healing in close proximity > to the prophet saying. Luke has the doctor before the prophet - > Thomas after. Mark is a far way off from Thomas in wording and > word order. ========================== Mark is writing a narrative. Thomas has a parallel structure proverb. Luke has something like the parallel structure proverb. Mark has a narrative about how Jesus couldn't heal in Nazareth which fits into Thomas' proverbial "Physicians don't heal those who know them." You could argue that Thomas has made a typical Jesus proverb out of a Markan narrative (reversing all known tendencies of the Jesus tradition). But you can't argue that some entirely different Lukan saying re: Physicians has anything to do with the discussion. Rather (as with the wine sayings discussed in my previous response) Luke has just juxtaposed two sayings with a similar topic (a catchword connection). Thomas is not closer to Luke vis a vis the "physician" business. If Luke is revising Mark back toward the proverbial, this is evidence that Luke has knowledge of a proverbial saying. Thomas contains a nice typical parallel proverbial saying. ========================= > Mark 4:21 Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? > Instead, don't you put it on its stand? > Matt 5:15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. > Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everybody in > the house. > Luke 11:33 No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will > be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead he puts it on its stand, so that > those that come in may see the light. > GTh 33b No one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket , nor does > one put it in a hidden place . Rather, one puts it on its lampstand > so that all who come in and go will see its light. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Luke and Thomas again! "No one lights a lamp and puts it...under > a bowl ("basket" in Thomas). Both Luke and Thomas are also the > only ones talking about the lamp being HIDDEN. In the second part > of the saying Luke and Thomas are also very close, almost word for > word. Only Luke and Thomas talk about "all (those) who come in". > Mark is the furthest away from Thomas. In the other gospels Jesus > makes a statement. In Mark he makes it in the form of two questions. > Mark has no mention of LIGHT in connection with the lamp, like the > other three gospels. ============================= Luke and Matthew have both revised Mark in the same general way back toward a Q saying. Mark has taken that saying from somewhere, probably Thomas, maybe oral tradition, and has done typical Mark things with it, i.e. " In Mark he makes it in the form of two questions." So Thomas is closer to Q than to Mark. No doubt about it. Mark's lack of "hidden" is the case, but in his next sentence Mark writes Mark 4:22 For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and one might surmise that "hidden" was known to him in the version of the saying he used to construct 4:21. =================== > Mark 3:28-29 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men > will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit > will never be forgiven; he is guilty of eternal sin > Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man > will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy spirit > will not be forgiven > Matt 12:31-32 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven > men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone > who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but > anyone who speaks against the the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, > either in this age or in the age to come > GTh 44 Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and > whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever > blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth > or in heaven > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > Not a clearcut case, but I would say that Thomas and Matthew are > in total closest to each other. Thomas is the lone man in letting men > blaspheme against the Father (any gnostic tinge here? The gnostics > weren't very happy about the jewish god). Both Thomas, Matthew and > Luke talk about "anyone (whoever) speaks a word (blasphemes) against > the Son of Man (Son). With a few modifications in Thomas it is practically > the same saying. Mark has nothing about blaspheming against Son/ Son > of Man. Thomas and Mtt/Luke are word by word the same in the last > part: "but anyone (whoever) blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will > not be forgiven". Mark is the lone man again in having "never" in this > part of the saying. Interestingly enough both Thomas and Matthew > have a little last comment that qualifies the "not be forgiven". Thomas > has "EITHER on earth OR in heaven." Matthew has "EITHER in this > age OR the age to come". The EITHER ...OR-saying in both Thomas > and Matthew has persuaded me that those two are closest. It is not > hard to understand why Thomas would have changed the chronological > dimension in Mathew (this and the next age) to a spatial dimension > (earth-heaven). Gnostics were not very fond of apocalyptic thinking. ======================== Yeah. Gnostics. Gnostics can be credited with doing absolutely anything you like. Declaring "this is what a Gnostic would have done" has made damn fools out of a lot of people discussing Thomas. You can declare that Gnostics would have done anything whatsoever and many will agree. In fact Gnostics did all sorts of things (cf. the NHC). I will give a Gnostic exegesis of anything whatsoever from football scores to the recent political events in Sweden for a modest fee. It is true that Matthew has > either in this age or in the age to come A TEMPORAL REFERENCE And Thomas has > either on earth or in heaven A SPATIAL REFERENCE These are A) Two quite different things B) Different than Mark's "eternal." I don't see what this leads to. Not to "Thomas got it from Matthew" and not easily to "Mark got it from Thomas." It doesn't even lead easily to "Matthew got it from Mark" !!! ===================== Steve