From: "Stevan Davies" To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:23:35 +0000 Subject: Re: Argument for Mark's use of Thomas Bob Schacht wrote: > > Steve, > Now, I do not have anything to offer > yea or nay by way of analysis of the texts themselves, but I think your > reconstruction implies that Mark had access to some body of information that > enabled him to evaluate the reliability of the sayings of Jesus recorded in > Thomas, such that he chose to accept some with little change and others only > with revision. I've not considered that question in depth. The one observation I can make is that when some power-claims are made in Thomas they are "banalized" or contradicted in Mark. That goes along with Mark's tendency to insist that those who would be first should be servants of all and so forth. > The question then becomes, were Mark's revisions based on some extraneous > ideological bias, or from an independent tradition about the nature and > character of the ministry of Jesus? I don't know where Mark got the idea that Christians should not make power claims except that if he knew his ideas were in conflict with those of Peter James John etc. then he had to make sure in his book to undermine their claims. Maybe he sincerely believed in the virtue of humility AND wanted to hammer the disciples-apostles-leaders for their arrogance. When it comes to disciples and leaders Thomas and Mark actually agree! Thomas doesn't think much of them either (except Thomas) Maybe that's why Thomas 13 particularly caught Mark's attention. Nevertheless Thomas communicates various power claims (i.e. implicitly, in favor of whomever has "made the two into one.") A saying which Mark banalizes into a comment on marriage (Mk. 10:8). Like Mark, Thomas would implicitly attack leadership and disciple claims while making other sorts of power claims (presumably on behalf of folks like him). And, I suppose, Matthew thinking of himself as a guy like Peter, would refurbish Peter's image. Somebody ought to write a book exclusively about NT power claims, it's a fascinating subject. > One way to answer this would be to assume, for the moment, that your > reconstruction is correct, and then to look for patterns in the way Mark > 'revised' Thomas, as you have already begun to do, i.e. via the thesis that > Mark has a bias against hierarchy (or am I overgeneralizing your point?) That's about right. And he seems to think a heirarchy will compel him to admit the superiority of the Jerusalem pillars. > Unfortunately, this pattern as it stands could still be ambiguous, as one > could argue for a source either in Jesus himself or in egalitarian classical > Greek political philosophy (Help, Carl!) If it originated in Jesus then Mark indeed was correct and Jesus' disciples got it all wrong. That doesn't seem likely to me. I picture Mark, like I picture Paul, as one who would stand up before an audience and brag about himself as a model of humility. > But do you read Mark as biased in favor of egalitarianism, or as biased in > favor of an upside-down hierarchialism (e.g., "the first shall be last")? Or > is he just holding a grudge against James the Just and wants to cut him down > to size? I think the grudge takes precedence. Mark arrogates to himself the right to speak on Jesus' behalf and make sure people knew that Mark knew what was right (by reading Mark's book). And I'm sure when Mark was thinking of "the last" who would be first, Mark would be humbling himself along at the very end of the line, the last of all. But then he'd be first, wouldn't he! Steve