Subject: Re: Mark or Thomas (#65-66)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:39:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Stephen C Carlson" 

William Arnal wrote:
>In Thomas #65 is a version of the parable of the tenants that appears 
>to have considerable priority over its Markan (12:1-12) parallel: unlike 
>Mark, it is not allegorized, and in fact seems largely left 
>uninterpreted; the focus, like other parables, is on decisive action, and 
>the "son" is just the victim of that action, not a figure for Jesus, or 
>so it seems. In Mark, the parable is considerably allegorized, it is a 
>figure for the rejection of Jesus, and, in a move that looks like Marcan 
>redaction, the saying about the rejected stone ("The stone rejected by 
>the builderfs turned out to be the cornerstone") is in corporated into 
>the pericope, as Jesus' auto-interpretation of the parable (just like he 
>does in ch.4, also, presumably, Marcan redaction).

What specifically makes GTh 65 "not allegorized" and Mk12:1-12 "considerably
allegorized"?  Verse 12 ("When they realized that he had told this parable
against them, they wanted to arrest them . . .")?  The story part of the
parable seems very similar...

[Why do Mark and Thomas agree in order?]
>	2. Coincidence or textual corruption.

Coincidence, see http://www.epix.net/~miser17/correl.htm

There are only 4 such examples, and one within Mark, and can all be
attributed to random chance.  Without knowing Thomas' organization
principles and independent evidence for a Thomas-Mark relationship,
coincidence remains the best explanation.

Stephen Carlson