Subject: Re: Thomas/Synoptic Parallels
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:36:33 -0500
From: "Mahlon H. Smith" <mahlonh.smith@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@mindspring.com>
CC: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com

I wrote:

> As for H0 (the null hypothesis: "Thomas was formed by copying
> selected sayings from first one synoptic gospel, then another..."): No
> one who has ever bothered to compare the wording of GThom sayings with
> canonical parallels could ever seriously propose this. Even a
> superficial reading of GThom proves that its sayings are not "copied"
> from any canonical text.

Stephen Carlson replied:

>
> Usually the purpose of the Null Hypothesis is to disprove it
> statistically.  Sometimes it happens; sometimes it doesn't.
> At any rate, to be fair to Bob's formulation, the operative
> part is "from first one synoptic gospel, then another."  If
> you want to quibble about "copied" then one could substitute
> "ultimately deriving" or some such.  The criticism, even if
> pedantically correct, simply misses Bob's point.
>

Thanks for the intervention, Stephen. But I did not intend to criticize
Bob personally (though on re-reading my prose, I grant it could appear
that way). I merely meant to keep the formulation of a source hypothesis
(even if it were a straw man) precise. "Copy" has an explicit meaning
that one text is taken directly from another. I would have expected you,
as a lawyer, to be well aware of issues of copy right. How am I being
"pedantic" when I take an author at his own word? My point was simply to
question the adequacy of any source hypothesis that assumes the priority
of the canonical texts vis-a-vis GThom. Whether one says "copied" or
"derived ultimately" a hypothesis of Thomasine dependence on the
canonical gospels is not going to be confirmed or disproven by an
abstract statistical analysis that ignores the actual wording of the
sayings.

The bulk of my post was meant to follow through on Bob's suggestion that
we use a Wald-Wolfowitz Runs test to give a more precise impression of
adjacent sequences of canonical parallels in GThom. The results clearly
demonstate an even greater degree of alternating of Thomasine parallels
to "first one synoptic gospel, then another" than even Bob proposed. So
I'll leave Bob to judge whether I missed his point. From my perspective,
the alternation is random enough to demonstrate conclusively that GThom
was *not* "formed" (again, Bob's word) by drawing on canonical materials
either directly or indirectly.

Shalom!

Mahlon

--

               *********************

Mahlon H. Smith,
Associate Professor
Department of Religion
Rutgers University
New Brunswick NJ

http://religion.rutgers.edu/mhsmith.html