Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 02:35:57 -0400 From: Mahlon H. Smith To: E. Bruce Brooks Cc: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Subject: Re: The Thomas/Q Hypothesis E. Bruce Brooks wrote: > > Topic: The Thomas/Q Hypothesis > In Response To: Survey Results and Subsequent Comment > "Thomas is > frequently eclectic with respect to Matthew and Luke." This, as far as it > goes, would be consistent with the possibility that Thomas is later than, > not a source for, Matthew/Luke. Given the known behavior of Matthew and > Luke themselves with respect to the source Mark (at least for those who > accept this sequence), where the last of the three (Luke) will sometimes > prefer the immediate precedessor Matthew and sometimes go back to the more > remote predecessor Mark, an oscillation between sources must be > acknowledged to be as much an option for the latest text as is a balanced > mixing of the two. In view of the comments of critics of, say, Lukan > tertiority - please use this word, and notify the OED scanning committee - > on the authorial strategies proposed for Luke, perhaps it is even a *more* > plausible option. I don't think there is anything in the numbers for > Options 2, 3, and 4 that would preclude an inference that Thomas has drawn > on Matthew and Luke. That possibility might then deserve separate study. > Of course, Bruce, any inference from a text is worthy of study, if for no other reason than to double-check whether it is plausible or not. I agree that the numbers for the voting do not "preclude" inferring that Thom used Matt & Luke. But, as I argued in my post yesterday, that inference results in the conclusion that the compiler(s) of GThom, UNLIKE Luke, did NOT act as consistent redactors but rather selected material in a scatter-brained way & deliberately distorted it. This, of course, is the classic accusation leveled against the authors of non-canonical texts by heresiologists from Irenaeus & Epiphanius on. But it only makes sense if one assumes a priori that (a) canonical sources are historically prior to non-canonical & (b) anyone who deviates from canonical texts is devious, schizoid or both. One is always free to draw that conclusion, of course. But then one should not pretend that one is comparing texts to determine relative dating & dependence. For one has dogmatically predetermined the results. The only point of testing redactional models is to determine which is more reasonable. And to be reasonable a model has to suppose that redactors generally act in reasonable ways that can be verified by normal editorial practices. The basic problems with every version of the hypothesis that Thom is dependent on Matt & Luke are: (1) it has to conclude that the editor(s) of this text acted inconsistently: on the one hand, prefering the Lukan form of double-tradition (Q) passages; on the other, prefering Matthean pericopes in single-tradition (special M or L) passages. But an even more serious objection is that (2) this hypothesis cannot explain why Thom generally does not reproduce Markan material even though this is where Matt & Luke are in greatest agreement. One cannot account for this simply by arguing that Thom did not know Mark, since in a few places (like the parable of the mustard seed) GThom is actually closer to Mark than to either Matt or Luke. And even if one granted that Thom did not have a copy of Mark handy, one would be hard pressed to explain why he omits Markan passages that were taken over by Matt & Luke. A particularly good example of this type of glaring omission is that difficult logion in Mark 4:11f (//Luke 8:8//Matt 13:11,13) "To you has been given to know the secret of the KofG, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that seeing they may see but not perceive & hearing they may hear but not understand..." Now there's a logion that the author of GThom 1 should have found right up his alley. IF the writer who began "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke...Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death" had really known Mark 4:11f or a synoptic parallel he probably would have made it the very next saying in his work & issued an invitation to readers like this: "Here's a real brain-twister, guys & gals. Let's see what any of you can make of it! Solve it & you're guaranteed immortality!" There, now, Bruce: I haven't "precluded an inference that Thomas has drawn on Matthew and Luke." I not only entertained the possibility but I made it the focus of a "separate study." I weighed it in the balance & found it seriously lacking in substance. Shalom! Mahlon P.S. Having written this, I note that Bruce is gonna be incommunicado for another week. Oh well, you CrossTalkers didn't stop posting critiques of the JS just because I was off-line for a month. So now Bruce can get a taste of what it's like to return to an in-box (or in his case, an archive) bursting with missives begging to be answered. -- ********************* Mahlon H. Smith, Associate Professor Department of Religion Rutgers University New Brunswick NJ http://religion.rutgers.edu/mhsmith.html