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

Re: Thomas/Synoptic Parallels

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... Are you familiar with Tuckett s Thomas and the Synoptics (NovT 30 (1988), pp. 132-57)? This article discusses the question of method, with reference to
    Message 1 of 14 , Oct 30, 1998
      On 29 Oct 98 at 17:41, rene joseph salm wrote:

      > However, as far as I know, no one has demonstrated that Thomas' use of
      > this material is in any way uniquely Matthean, Lucan, or Markan, either
      > at specific points, or in general.

      Are you familiar with Tuckett's "Thomas and the Synoptics" (NovT 30 (1988), pp.
      132-57)? This article discusses the question of method, with reference to
      earlier scholarship on the question of Thomas's possible knowledge of the
      Synoptics. He then offers five examples "where the present text of Th appears
      to presuppose the redactional activity of the Synoptic evangelists", Th. 5
      (parallel to LkR of Mark), Th. 16 (parallel to LkR of Q), Th 55 (parallel to
      MattR or LukeR of Q), Th 20 (parallel to putative MkR), Th 9 (parallel to
      putative MkR).

      Not all of Tuckett's examples will convince everyone but they do, of course,
      deserve to be taken seriously.

      I have developed my own argument for Thomas's dependence on Luke 11.27-28
      for Thom. 79a based on the pervasive Lukan features of that text, but it is not
      published yet, except in sketch form on Crosstalk at
      http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk/766.html. You might like to look at
      the dialogue with Steve that followed on from this too -- easy to follow in the

      > This suggests that, for about 2/3 of his gospel, Thomas drew upon a
      > common fund of sayings material, and adapted such to his own
      > theology/purposes.

      In spite of the above, I would agree that Thomas is indeed dependent on oral
      traditions for much or most of his Gospel. I am a little nervous, however,
      about the terminology of "a common fund", at least if that were to mean a
      homogeneous pool to which all the evangelists had equal access. For as your
      lists make clear, the parallels between Thomas and the Synoptics range widely
      across every single strand of Synoptic material, Mark, Q, M, L, MattR of Mark,
      LukeR of Mark, Mark-Q overlap. There are parallels here with a diverse set of
      > The facts that GTh seems uninfluenced by the Synoptics (see above), that as
      > a "gospel" GTh lacks a passion (cf. Proto-Mark), and approximates a list of
      > sayings ("Q") initially suggest an early dating (at least for T1), one on a
      > par with those "documents."

      You are right, of course, to put "documents" in inverted commas. Given that
      there does seem to be some limited influence from the Synoptics (disputed, of
      course), I would be uneasy about dating Thomas early solely on the basis of
      hypothesised documents.

      Have a good weekend

      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

      Recommended New Testament Web Resources:
      World Without Q:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.