Re: Thomas/Synoptic Parallels
- On 29 Oct 98 at 17:41, rene joseph salm wrote:
> However, as far as I know, no one has demonstrated that Thomas' use ofAre you familiar with Tuckett's "Thomas and the Synoptics" (NovT 30 (1988), pp.
> this material is in any way uniquely Matthean, Lucan, or Markan, either
> at specific points, or in general.
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
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 aIn spite of the above, I would agree that Thomas is indeed dependent on oral
> common fund of sayings material, and adapted such to his own
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
>You are right, of course, to put "documents" in inverted commas. Given that
> 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."
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
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: