Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:52:38 EDT
From: Ragu1997@aol.com
To: mahlonh.smith@worldnet.att.net
Cc: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: The Thomas/Q Hypothesis

Mahlon wrote:
...
<<
Historically, it can be demonstrated that the claim that Luke & Matt
were composed before Thomas is based primarily on apologetics rather
than an unbiased examination of the data. For the historical priority of
Matt & Luke is what the orthodox fathers (e.g., Clement & Irenaeus)
claimed in their struggles with Christian groups that favored GThom,
like the monks of Chenoboskian. So Coptic Thomas had barely been
discovered before it was characterized by modern orthodox-trained
scholars as an obvious "gnostic" fabrication sprinkled with excerpts
from the *Coptic* translations of the canonical gospels. The
identification of fragments found at Oxyrhynchus as remnants of 3 copies
of Greek GThom undercut that argument. But despite the dating of these
papyri as early or earlier than any surviving gospel ms. except GJohn &
the fact that this data has been available for almost half a century,
most Christian scholars blithely go on assuming the priority of the
synoptic gospels to GThom. 
>>

I'd rather not make much of the mss. dating in an argument for
priority/dependence. Why not? Well, can we assume John was the first written
gospel because our earliest ms., P52, is John?

<<
Why? Because *we* never learned anything
about GThom in Sunday school & it is not read in church. Since, as
Christians, *our* knowledge of Matt & Luke preceded our knowledge of
GThom, *we* are naturally inclined to favor the priority of Matt & Luke
over GThom. Whether we admit it or not, we have all been programmed to
favor automatically any argument that supports what we think we already
know. So, we are all usually slow to accept new evidence that
contradicts what we already believe & inclined to reject contradictory
evidnece even before we have examined it. That is why Steve Davies, Mike
Grondin, Steve Patterson, & Marvin Meyers are still a minority among
biblical scholars & why they have to traverse continents & cyberspace to
win a few converts among those who are hard of heart & slow to believe,
like the rest of us.  
>>
...

I haven't been following this thread, but anyhow, I find such comments that
conclusions that GThom was dependent on the synoptics are primarily biased,
based on prejudices, etc, a bit rough on the edges. I'm certain that you're
all aware of J.P. Meier's work concluding dependence on the canonical
gospel(s). (For an online treatment: http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/gthomas.html,
cf. http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_04_01_02.html).

As for the question of dependence/independence itself, reasonable scholars
hold to either position. OTOH, it is not enough for us to speak of a
researcher's bias towards a conclusion. Any presupposition is
(argumentatively) innocuous until it becomes a part of the argument. A scholar
supporting GThom independence can no more refute arguments for the dependence
of GThom by calling opposing arguments "apologetics" than an apologist refute
arguments for the independence of GThom by saying "Most of them just want to
historically nullify the picture of Jesus in the four gospels." As you would
agree, this is irrelevant in the big picture. I'd not make much of it unless
researchers become unreasonable.

As for detailed arguments on this subject, don't expect much from me; I by no
means think myself to be some kind of "authority", if I somehow give that
impression. But I don't think I'm in the least unreasonable here.

later,
Ryan Renn
http://members.xoom.com/Ragu1997/index.htm