From: "Mark Goodacre" To: "William E. Arnal" , crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:41:36 GMT Subject: Re: Thomas 65-66 I wrote: > > The notion of a 'probable original version' presupposes that parables > > begin as simple stories which become steadily more allegorised with > > the passage of time. 'Highly allegorized' and 'later' are held > > together as if they necessarily belong together in the last sentence > > here. The notion of 'form-critical expertise' etc. is rhetoric. > > Luke's version of this very parable demonstrates that allegorical > > features from an earlier version (Mark's) can be dropped - Mk 12.5 (in > > which the third servant is killed and many others are beaten and > > killed), representing the fate of the prophets, is dropped, or, one > > might say, 'excised'. William Arnal responded: > I think that this response (above) misconstrues the > character of the form-critical observations about > allegories. The point is not so much that the presence of > any given detail is always secondary to the absence of such > a detail. It is, rather, that general and clearly-focused > example stories BECAME allegories, rather than the reverse. This was precisely the kind of 'tendency' approach to the tradition that I was commenting on. This response presupposes that there was a clearly observable tendency towards allegorisation as time progressed. Jesus spoke pure one-point parables which in the process of time were steadily corrupted by ever-increasing allegorisation. I do not think that there was such a clearly observable tendency, steadily rising up the graph from 'low allegory' to 'high allegory' as the years progress. The point about Luke is that he puts the lie to this approach. His parables are not, on the whole, more allegorical than those in Mark and / or Q and / or Matthew, something that ought to be the case if the 'steadily increasing tendency' theory is correct. > One could further say, relatedly, that references to Jesus > tend to be added rather than deleted from the tradition. > The interesting thing about Thomas #65 is not that it lacks > detail (it doesn't, in fact) but that it lacks any clear > application to Jesus himself or any allegorizing referent. > It is an example story. And it is difficult to imagine a) > why Thomas, or anyone else, would want to completely remove > the allegorical dimension from the story (which is different > than deleting cumbersome or heavy-handed individual > details), I am not an expert on Thomas (still learning) but as I read it, there are very few (if any) explicit references to the death of Jesus / Passion Narrative in his Gospel. It seems that Thomas was uninterested in the death of Jesus. If so, the reason for avoiding the allegorical elements in the Matthew-Mark-Luke versions (which seem to be taken as referring to the death of Jesus, the AGAPHTOS etc.) would be obvious. > or b) how Thomas was able to excise such referents > so effectively. Talking about 'excision' is still working on the assumption that it would be natural for any writer writing at a later time to allegorise and thus unnatural to de-allegorise. The re-telling of the story might quite easily have involved reducing the elements of allegory -- as I mentioned, Luke often does this, on everyone's (except Lukan priorists') assumptions. > Even if one can come up with (IMHO, > inevitably strained) answers to these questions, the fact > is, we are here dealing with an instance where one has to > posit a tendency in Thomas that runs counter to observed > tendencies of the tradition, Once more, this is precisely the problem, the notion of 'observed tendencies of the tradition'. What is the evidence for a steadily increasing tendency towards allegorisation in this period? I think it boils down to one datum: Matthew's parables are on the whole more allegorical than Mark's. This is accurate. But this tells us nothing except that Matthew liked allegorising more than did Mark. And Luke liked allegorising less than did Mark, so the tendency notion does not get us anywhere. > at least if one is to maintain > Thomas' dependence. I should also point out that there is no > indication at all that Thomas avoids allegories or > allegorical symbolism. Again, I am not an expert on Thomas, but glancing through the text in translation I notice that 1). his version of the Great Supper appears markedly less allegorical than does either Matthew's or Luke's; 2). his parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Thomas 57) is markedly less allegorical than Matthew's; 3). his parable of the Sower is markedly less allegorical than Mark's / Matthew's / Luke's. If one believes in the necessary tendency theory (steadily increasing allegory), then Thomas, or his traditions, have to pre-date the Synoptics. If one does not go for the necessary tendency theory, as I do not, then it is not necessary to believe that Thomas (or his traditions) have to predate Mark. Stevan has sent a related message, 'Farrer Theory disproved' which works on some of the same assumptions. I do not, unfortunately, have time to reply to it now but I will try to respond in the morning before I travel down to Oxford to hear Kloppenborg. With good wishes Mark -------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm