Subject: Re: Thoughts of GosThom Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 02:12:45 -0400 From: "Stephen C. Carlson" To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com It seems to me that the case for Thomas' nondependence on the Synoptics would be easier if one were a Griesbachian. The problem that I with those who hold to both Thomasine nondependence and Markan priority is that, when the parallels between Thomas and the triple tradition are examined, Thomas often agrees with the secondary triple tradition (according to the Markan priority, that is) against Mark. This suggests that EITHER (a) Thomas is dependent on the Synoptics, specifically, the secondary Synoptics, OR (b) that Markan priority ought to be reconsidered. On the other hand, under the Griesbach Hypothesis, then Thomas' apparent preference for the earlier Synoptic tradition is fully compatible with its nondependence on any of the Synoptics. Thomas' nondependence simply works better with Matthean or Lukan priority. However, no visible supporter of Thomas' nondependence is rushing to eschew Markan priority and/or join Farmer for the Griesbach Hypothesis. Perhaps the reason is that they need Q to help establish that lists are earlier and narratival gospels are late. Given the statements that Thomas' nondependence somehow challenges the Farrer Hypothesis (I still can't figure out why), I suspect that Q, which requires Markan Priority, is non-negotiable for supporters of Thomas' nondependence. If I ever met someone who was so convinced about Thomas' nondependence that he reassessed and modified his views on Q, then I'd be impressed. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35