Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] GTh comparison

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Ron Price (quoting Dave Inglis) On: GTh Comparison From: Bruce DAVE: Q theories should take Thomas into account, RON:
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG
      In Response To: Ron Price (quoting Dave Inglis)
      On: GTh Comparison
      From: Bruce

      DAVE: Q theories should take Thomas into account,

      RON: There is a potential irony here, for if comparison with GTh helps us to
      solve the Synoptic Problem, then it might *indirectly* tell us quite a lot
      about the HJ!

      BRUCE: But only if. There is also the chance that it may snarl the Synoptic
      Problem.

      DAVE: re-constructions of Q that look more like Thomas should be preferred
      to those that look less like Thomas.

      RON: Indeed. So it could be quite significant that as in GTh and in my
      reconstruction of the sayings source there are no narrative passages (unlike
      "Q"), and they both consist solely of sayings attributed to Jesus (unlike
      "Q" which also includes sayings attributed to John the Baptist).

      BRUCE: I would be glad of a look at Ron's reconstruction, and especially a
      short tour of the principles on which it is erected. But as to the value of
      Thomas as a model for any such reconstruction, that would depend on whether
      it is pre- or post-Synoptic. I recall Mark Goodacre sharing, some years ago,
      on another list if not on this one, a clear instance of directionality which
      showed that Thomas was secondary to one particular Synoptic parallel.
      Perhaps Mark would like to repeat that point for us in 2006, given the many
      different faces now present. Or to give us a reference to a version
      published in the meantime.

      If, as I think Mark has showed, Thomas is late, then it is only a witness to
      what the later Gnostics did with the opportunities opened to them by, inter
      alia, the Synoptics. It does not increase the probability that any source
      *earlier* than one or more of the Synoptics had the form of a sayings
      collection.

      It would then seem to me that the form of any reconstructed Synoptic source
      can be whatever the logic of its reconstruction tends to suggest, and that
      the "sayings source" type would have no particular weight, as among other
      imaginable possibilities.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Ron Price
      ... Bruce, It can be found on the following Web page: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQet.html ... Here is a rough guide of the procedure, from
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce Brooks wrote:

        > I would be glad of a look at Ron's reconstruction,

        Bruce,

        It can be found on the following Web page:

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQet.html

        > and especially a short tour of the principles on which it is erected.

        Here is a rough guide of the procedure, from which the principles should be
        apparent.

        1. Doublets are duplicated sayings in Matt or Luke which look as if they can
        best be explained as resulting from the later synoptic writer taking one
        version from Mark and the other from a sayings source. There are around 25
        in Matthew and 15 in Luke, which because of Mt/Lk overlap allows us to
        identify 28 to 30 sayings in all (we cannot be precise at this stage because
        a text might be one big saying or two little ones). These are taken as the
        core sayings which define the literary and theological characteristics of
        the source, and can be used as a template by which to assess other candidate
        sayings. (Incidentally already at stage 1. they include 5 non-Q sayings.)

        2. It is proposed that the Double Tradition material comes from two sources:
        some Luke copied from Matthew and some came from the sayings source. In this
        way we can add another 30 or so sayings which are compatible with the core
        sayings. (Most of the remaining pericopes show clear signs of Matthean
        style.)

        3. We can then look for additional 'Sondergut' sayings. These are typically
        sayings in Matthew which Luke most likely omitted because they treat
        Gentiles as alien and/or inferior, or Markan Triple Tradition sayings whose
        meaning has been deliberately transformed by the Markan context to make them
        acceptable to the Christian mission and which neither Matthew nor Luke were
        prepared to include in their raw form.

        4. Matthew created five 'discourses'. Three of these (in chs. 5-7, 10 and
        23-24) contain many of the sayings and look as if they might have been
        modelled on sections in the source. The sayings themselves looked as if they
        might have been arranged in pairs: two about lamps, two about treasure, two
        about master/underling etc.. It soon became apparent that there had been
        four main sections, in each of which the first saying indicated the general
        theme. I labelled the sections A (general theme 'Entry into the kingdom') ,
        B ('Mission'), C ('The coming kingdom') and D ('Hindrances to the kingdom').
        Each saying in section A (the primary source for Mt 5-7) had a parallel in
        section C. It took a little longer to work out that the sayings in sections
        B (the primary source for Mt 10) and D (the primary source for Mt 23-24)
        could also be paired.

        5. The order of the sayings seems to have been preserved somewhat better by
        Matthew than by Luke. For Luke only kept together one recognizable section,
        namely the Sermon on the Plain - a much reduced section A. The order has
        been partially determined (especially in section C) by the pairings. But
        another clue emerged out of the blue (sorry about that: the poetry of the
        sayings is a lot better!). Many of the sayings have word or thematic links
        with adjacent sayings. Thus for example sayings A17, A18 and A19 mention
        good and evil, and B6 and B7 mention "all".

        6. Finally the number of sayings is confirmed (I believe) by a subtle hint
        left by Luke in two clauses which can be interpreted as having double
        meanings: "the Lord appointed a further seventy-two and sent them on ahead
        in pairs..." (Lk 10:1). (Kurt Aland demolishes the case for the alternative
        reading '70' - see Metzger's 'A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT'.)

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.