> Mahlon H. Smith wrote:
> > I think there is a fourth argument to support Thomasine independence that puts the
> > dependence people on the defensive:
> > 4. Randomness: GThom is regularly more disorganized than parallel
> > synoptic material.
I agree. I just forgot that one.
> On the one hand, I think that if a similar organization were discernible between
> thomas/synoptics, then that would suggest strongly some kind of dependence. On the other
> hand, I don't think the absence of similar order, in and of itself, indicates anything.
And I agree with this too. Perhaps Justin's sayings of Jesus are
disordered in reference to their sources (I've not checked but
suspect this is so)... yet this in and of itself does not mean that
Justin is taking them from oral tradition.
What Mahlon and I are saying is that Thomas matches what a collection
of sayings drawn from oral tradition would be, for it has the
characteristics of primitiveness, lack-of-clear-redactional-material,
absence of synoptic order, presence of a few authentic sayings not
otherwise known, presence of inauthentic sayings.
The dependence side cannot, so far as I know, disagree.
Their problem and task is to explain how it is that what appears to
be a collection of sayings drawn from oral tradition is, in fact, not
this but rather is a collection composed through interaction with the
Canonical Scriptures despite the fact that sayings composed
through interaction with the Canonical Scriptures as found in the
writings of e.g. Justin, 2 Clement, don't look like this at all,
while Q (pace Mark G) does look a good deal like this.
But let me put the question to the dependence side: "What would
a list of sayings attributed to Jesus drawn from oral tradition look
like if not like Thomas?"