Subject: Re: Thoughts of GosThom
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 20:27:44 -0700
From: Andrew Bernhard <cabern@teleport.com>
To: miser17@epix.net
CC: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com

> MARK
> >  how far do verbatim agreements demand a theory of
> > textual copying?  One of the things that may help us is if the verbatim
> > agreement in question constitutes a sentence, construction etc. that is in some
> > way odd or striking, the kind of thing that would not easily be remembered
> > verbatim.  I think that the strongest Thomasine // Synoptic agreement, between
> > Saying 26 in P Oxy 1.1-4 and Luke 6.42 is like this.  This is a 13 word
> > verbatim agreement between Thom. and Luke (the position of EKBALEIN
> > agreeing with Matt.7.5b). I noticed recently that this was one of the sentences
> > that Hawkins at the turn of the century regarded as making literary dependence
> > among the Synoptics likely.
>
> STEVE
> Easiest question to ask here is why, if Thomas is copying verbatim,
> does he suddenly give us a Matthew variation? I'm tempted to haul out
> my "harmonization" cannon, but first things first. What theory of
> dependence or manner of textual usage gives us here a Matthew
> variation?

We should note Fitzmeyer's comment here: "[Grenfell and Hunt] noted that the preserved part of the saying 'agrees exactly with the wording of'  Lk 6:42.  However, a glance at a modern critical text of the the NT reveals that the infinitive is found at the end of the verse.  A. von Harnack explained the discrepancy, nopting that 'recent editors, following their preference for B, have put ekbalein at the end, whereas all other Uncials, and also the Coptic version show the word where we find it in the Papyrus'.  This being so, the relation of the Oxyrhynchus logoi to the Lucan version is clear."  ("Oxyrhynchus Logoi and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas" 390-391)

Fitzmeyer also notes that the conjunction kai does not correspond to the Coptic, but it does correspond to the canonical parallels.  It is extremely unfortunate that we do not have more of this fragment as the possibility that the verbatim agreement was even lengthier seems very possible.

Andrew