Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:00:07 -0400 From: Mahlon H. Smith To: James R. Covey Cc: crosstalk Subject: Re: The Thomas/Q Hypothesis James R. 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. > Good observation & caveat, Jim. The claim that Thom is usually closer to Luke than Matt is an observation that is valid only in comparing the parallels to pericopes common to both Matt & Luke (=Q), not to the special M or L material. The fact that Thom does have a liberal dose of special M material is even more a warning to those who hold that Thom has an anti-Matthean bias. This has very definite implications for hypotheses regarding synoptic-Thom relations & it does pose serious difficulties for those who claim that Thom is a conflation of Matt & Luke. IF the compiler of GThom got his synoptic parallels from Matt & Luke, then he generally preferred Lukan wording to parallel passages, but had no problem echoing Matt if Luke did not have a parallel & included little material that he found only in Luke. Is this a reasonable pattern of redactional activity? One could always view the compiler(s) of GThom as esoteric freak(s) who is/are more schizoid than reasonable. But that is no explanation of this clear pattern of agreement. For an author to echo the Lukan form of Q passages he would obviously have to be fairly familiar with Luke & prefer it to Matt. If this were the case with Thom one would expect him also to prefer special Lukan material rather than special Matt. But that is demonstrably NOT the case. Ergo, from a redaction critical perspective, the hypothesis that GThom is dependent on Luke & Matt is highly implausible if not sheer nonsense. As demonstration of this: compare Lukan parallels to Mark & Matt. Whether Luke knew Matt or his sayings source (Q) does not affect the model. It is demonstrable that Luke generally prefers Markan wording in a triple tradition pericope. Practically everybody admits that extensive synoptic agreement across the board presupposes Mark as the mediating text. When Luke presents non-Markan material from Matt he generally does NOT use wording & themes that are characteristic of Matt (in either special Matt material or Matthean parallels to Mark). Whether one explains this by arguing that Luke has deliberately censored Matt or that he uses Matt's source rather than Matt itself one has a relatively consistent pattern of Luke's general redactional practice: he does not present material with the Matthean flavor (whatever the source). The only major exceptions to this are in the Markan-Q doublet sections, where Luke surprisingly seems to reverse his non-Matthean orientation by presenting a version of a pericope that is obviously closer to Matt than Mark (e.g., oracles of JB, temptation, parable of mustard, Beelzebul discourse, sign of Jonah -- all of which have been subject of debate on CrossTalk). To explain these pericopes there are only really two options. Luke got these pericopes from Matt or Matt's source. Those who see GMatt as Luke's non-Markan source (Farrer/Griesbach et al) have to argue that Luke was an eclectic editor, who sometimes for (no clear reason) abandoned his general preference for Mark to echo passages scattered randomly throughout Matt. Those who claim that Luke used Matt's sayings source (Q) argue that Luke acted consistently as an editor, generally preferring Mark UNLESS he knew of a parallel in Q. That is to say: Luke generally prefers Q to Mark & both of these to Matt (IF he knew Matt). Since Luke is obviously not schizoid but the most rational of gospel writers, the latter option is still favored by most gospel scholars despite problems posed by the non-Markan MAs, etc. Thom, however, includes many Matthean passages that even Luke had no use for (e.g., parables of weeds, treasure, pearl) & excludes most of the major special Lukan material (e.g., parables of Samaritan, prodigal, unjust steward). Since, this is directly contrary to Thom's tendency to prefer Lukan forms of shared passages, the hypothesis that Thom edited Luke & Matt is self-contradictory. For a redactional hypothesis to be operable it has to present a model that makes at least some rational sense out of the content of texts, not just declare a priori that author X used sources Y & Z, whether the evidence points that way or not. In the case of GThom, the lack of a consistent redactional model indicates Thomas is most probably independent of Luke & Matt. Shalom! Mahlon -- ********************* Mahlon H. Smith, Associate Professor Department of Religion Rutgers University New Brunswick NJ http://religion.rutgers.edu/mhsmith.html