Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 16:04:35 GMT From: Mark Goodacre To: Crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Cc: gmiller@netcom.com Subject: Re: The Thomas/Q Hypothesis James Covey wrote: > It's interesting in the context of the previous discussion that > there seems to be more M material than L material in Thomas! A word > of caution to those who would generalize that Thomas is more Lukan > than Matthean. This touches on something that comes in Glen Miller's web article to which Ryan referred us (http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/gthomas.html). Following J. P. Meier, Miller stresses that Thomas has parallels to every strand of Synoptic material: Triple Tradition (Mk) Double Tradition (Q) Special Matthew (M) Special Luke (L) Meier / Miller add that there are parallels to Matthean and Lukan redactional additions to Mark (on the assumption of Markan Priority) as well as parallels to John. [All listed in Miller's article]. One might add too that there are parallels to Mark-Q overlap material. Since I am somewhat ignorant about these things, I would be interested to know how Thomasine (sic) independence people cope with this. Does it not strain plausibility that Thomas, if it pre-dates the synoptics, should have parallels to every single strand of synoptic material? Does not this picture sit better with a second-century Thomas than an early / mid-first-century Thomas? There may well be a good explanation and I would be interested to see it, or to know where to look for it. I had not seen the (apparent) force of this point until I looked at the web page to which Ryan referred us. All the best Mark [This message is cc-ed to Glenn Miller] -------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre -------------------------------------- Crosstalk Web Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/crosstalk