Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 22:53:55 -0400 From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: SV: GOThomas At 04:32 4/28/97 +0000, Stevan Davies wrote: >If Thomas did use the Synoptics he evidently went through like a >redaction critic carefully excising elements of sayings that were >added by the evangelists failiing only in a very few instances, one >word here, a phrase there, and he did this for dozens of sayings >systematically while, at the same time, adding rather little >redactional comment of his own (and that rather crudely, e.g. "and >they shall be a single one" at the end of a saying). I don't quite buy this line of argumentation. Basically, the Form Critics streamline the text and call it original. Thomas, too, streamlines texts, but that does not make it original. Back to Thomas 26, I'd bet that if you asked anyone on the street (or in the pew) to relate the "speck in your brother's eye" saying, the result would be closer to Thomas 26 than to Matthew (by omitting the redundant Mt7:4=Lk6:42ab). I really doubt it is so difficult to simplify out these so-called "secondary accretions." >> However, Patterson's >> methodology assumes that John is independent. > >I have no idea what John has to do with this. I know Antonio is white >with rage that I don't, but I don't. So John revised one, two, all >the synoptics and produced some almost completely different text. >What on earth does this have to do with Thomas? The reason John is an issue is because Patteron makes John an issue (pp.12-16). Here is a quote (p.16): "It remains, therefore, to ask: Is Thomas' relationship to the synoptic gospels to be considered analogous to the literary relationships that prevail among the synoptic gospels themselves, or rather to the looser relationship that exists between John and the synoptics, that is, sharing oral, and perhaps also common written sources, but on the whole carrying on as two more or less independent streams?" I can think of three problems off the top of my head: 1. The Synoptics actually represent one of the closest literary interrelationships known in the ancient world. Mattila, NTS 41:207 (1995) writes "With rare exceptions, classical authors, including Josephus, CONSISTENTLY and thoroughly rewrote their sources." (emphasis original, footnotes omitted). Thus, Patterson's method- ology, by using the Synoptic problem as his benchmark, has a systematic, built-in bias in favor of independence. 2. Thomas is much closer as a whole than John to the synoptics in terms content, order, and wording, yet Thomas' genre differs. 3. Patterson's argument by analogy relies on Johannine independence. Basically, Patterson's analysis requires one to accept a certain number of coincidences. What is the acceptable number? Patterson's methodology in comparing Thomas to John is to lay the foundation that a good amount is unavoiable. However, Johannine independence is sand not rock. >I cannot believe that you, SC, are arguing that "if we know that X is >a text radically revised in manner Z from texts ABC it follows that >Y is a text radically revised in manner K from texts ABC." But if >this isn't the argument, what is? The argument is how substantial of a *literary similarity* suffices to establish a literary relationship. Patterson would say that the level of literary of similarity between John and the Synoptics is insufficient. That is, as far as I can determine, against the recent trend. >> For example, consider Patterson's discussion of Thomas 26. In general, >> Patterson pays little attention to the Greek text of Thomas, as preserved >> in the Oxyrhynchus papyri, and this inattention prove embarrassing. >> Background (emphasis added): >> >> Th 26 ... then you will see clearly to take out the speck FROM your >> brother's eye. >> Mt7:5 ... and then you will see clearly to take out the speck FROM >> your brother's eye. >> Lk6:42 ... and then you will see clearly to take out the speck THAT >> IS in your brother's eye. >> >> Patterson writes (pp.30-1) (quotations, footnotes omitted): >> >> While it may be true ... that Thom 26:2 seems closer to Matt 7:5 >> than to Luke 6:42b, both of these Matthean details derive from Q, >> not the redactional hand of Matthew. Thus, they do not demonstrate >> Thomas' dependence upon Matthew, but rather suggest that both >> Thomas and the synoptic authors share a saying each has inherited >> from an older tradition. >> Basically, P. is saying that "from your brother's eye" is Q. Therefore, >> Luke's "that is in your brother's eye" is Lukan redaction of Q. However, >> Greek POxy1,1 reads "and then you will see clearly to take out the speck >> THAT IS in your brother's eye." Thus, the earlier, Greek text of Thomas >> 26 contains a Lukan redaction of Q. In other words, this is evidence >> points to Thomas inheriting an older tradition of *Luke*. [Note: Steve >> is still able to argue that Luke is a conflation of Q and Thomas.] > >The fault here is with everybody concerned, I'd say. One of the purposes of the example is to show Patterson's failure to to adequately address the Greek text of Thomas. >When the issue >is a phrase that is essentially synonymous in ordinary parlance to >argue that X took it from Y or Z changed it from Y especially when Y >is unknown! is methodologically unsound unless we know that authors >were obsessed with conveying exact verbal phraseology. We know they >weren't. We also should know that copiests and translators weren't >either. We also should know that we do not have the original >autograph of Mt. or Lk. And so on... Yet all twelve words of POxy 1,1 are found Luke's admitted redaction of Q. Eleven of them are in the identical order. Verbatim agreement is strong prima evidence of a literary relationship, especially in the context you have laid out. >I think the 6 part list given >above might well be expanded some, thorough the addition of other >means by which things change. Then Patterson (or anybody) could just >time and again copy the list.... here are all the ways that texts >having "FROM" might relate to texts having "THAT IS" and leave it at >that. Underlying Patterson's view is his proper antagonism to the >view that if it is possible that Thomas took X from Y then we know >Thomas took X from Y. A constant reiteration of "it is also possible >that 1,2,3,4,5, etc. took place" might do the trick better than >Patterson's attempt to pinpoint e.g. 2. Well, let's go through the list... >1. The scribes who copied Thomas almost certainly harmonized elements >of Thomasine sayings with the canonical versions with >which they were familiar. Such harmonization is a well known phenomenon >in the text traditions of the synoptic gospels >themselves especially in the Coptic textual tradition. POxy 1 is Greek, not Coptic, so Coptic textual tradition is irrelevant. >2. It is likely that whoever translated Thomas from Greek to Coptic did so >in light of his knowledge of the sayings as they are >found in the canonical gospels and so some harmonizing is to be expected >in Coptic Thomas. POxy 1 is Greek, not Coptic, so translation into Coptic is irrelevant. >3. Coincidence and chance undoubtedly played a role. If, for example, >Luke made a slight change in a saying that he found in >Mark, Thomas may have coincidentally thought it proper to make the same >change in a saying that he found in oral tradition, or >oral tradition may have contained that supposed change. Coincidence is always a possibility. But how many coincidences do we have to accept? >4. Insofar as fragments of passages in Luke or Matthew are said to >indicate redaction, this presupposes that we have at hand for >comparison a perfect version of the same text of Mark that Matthew or Luke used. >We do not. In some cases, what appear to >be minor redactional changes made by Matthew or Luke may actually >reflect the original text of Mark. The problem is more acute for Q, because we have no text of Q per se, much less the original text. However, Patterson admits that the Matthean version is more original here. >5. Redactional material in Luke or Matthew may derive from those >authors' knowledge of material in Thomas. Gregory Riley >(1995) has recently argued that Luke 12:14 and 5:39 indicate that >some parts of Luke's gospel "must post-date and be >dependent on sayings formed in Thomas Christianity." [And now, also >my own arguments re: Mark's use of Thomas]. This is a possibility. >6. And... of course... Perhaps Thomas used the three Synoptics. This is also a possibility. My basic problem with Patterson is that I found myself being asked to accept too many coincidences. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35