Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 02:32:26 From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Antonio Jerez , crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Cc: miser17@epix.net Subject: re: Thomas/Q project At 07:56 6/24/98 +0200, Antonio Jerez wrote: >I don't know in what sense Stevan can claim that there is "too much >Mark in Thomas for this to be a possibility". He probably meant "too much Triple Tradition in Thomas for this [scil. proto-Thomas as Q] to be a possibility" with "Mark" as synecdoche for the Triple Tradition. >We have gone through >this already and I think it should be pretty obvious by know that there >is not much of Mark at all in Thomas, if by that we mean Marcan forms >of sayings that are more similar to Thomas than the parallel forms in >Mtt/Luke. Th 21 c (Mark 4:26) and a couple of other sayings that are >just a bit closer to Thomas than Mtt/Luke hardly support a claim that >there is "too much Mark in Thomas". This would be a different and less probable interpretation. What this evidence shows, however, is that Mark is not a middle term between Thomas and the Mt/Lk, so source theories like Th -> Mk -> Mt,Lk and Mt,Lk -> Mk -> Th are quite unlikely. 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