Subject: Re: Thoughts of GosThom
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 20:16:09 -0700
From: Andrew Bernhard <cabern@teleport.com>
To: miser17@epix.net
CC: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com

Stevan Davies wrote:

> Gee. I thought I had just a minute ago.

I know, but I just wanted a concise list.

> 1. Thomas' sayings almost always lack the redactional material
> in the synoptics.

Now this is an interesting way of reframing the situation that I had not considered.  I'm
going to have to think about this more.  If there truly is a pattern of omission of
redactional elements, then this is a weighty argument.  Are there any particularly useful
articles, books, studies, etc. that you would recommend on this subject.

> 2. They are often in more primitive form than paralleled materials.
> (This second does not follow from the first, it is another
> proposition.)

I'm going to have to examine what you mean by "often".

> 3. Lists are a primitive form within the Christian tradition, taken
> over by narratives etc.

Am I correct in assuming that this is a secondary argument, i.e. it does depend on the first two?  While the idea that a list was a primitive form in the tradition makes sense, it doesn't prove anything in and of itself.  If we recovered a "sayings gospel" that contained verbatim excepts from the Sermon on the Mount, verbatim excerpts from the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3, and some verbatim special Luke parables, among other things, we would probably consider this "sayings gospel" dependent on the canonical gospels, even though it was a sayings gospel.  In short, #3 can offer support to your first two arguments, but offers nothing in isolation.

I also read the rest of your letter and must confess that I am overwhelmed by how thoroughly you have thought this problem through.  I need a while to digest it.  That's for your valuable input.

Andrew