7192Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas
- Jul 21, 2006--- In email@example.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@...> wrote:
> Andrew, how are you defining "dependent on"? When I read/hear it,
> that it's saying that the writer had copies of a manuscript fromwhich s/he
> copied passages more or less directly into her/his new document.Using that
> definition, it seems extremely unlikely to me that GTh is dependenton the
> Synoptics. Unless Mike is right and Coptic GTh is a totalrearrangement of
> the text to fit it around some sort of numerically based secretcode (sorry,
> Mike, if this is too simplistic a summary of your argument), Ithink GTh
> bears the hallmarks of a document that is very close to the oralundergone
> transmission phase of its existence, whereas the Synoptics have
> some quite extensive editing. I find it very difficult to believethat the
> author of Thomas would deliberately take the carefully orderedmaterial from
> the Synoptics and rip it apart and scatter it around, unless Mike isand the
> I have no difficulty with the possibility that the Thomas Kernel
> Synoptics are based on common sources, although I find common oraltradition
> more convincing than written material, but for me that's not thesame as
> Thomas being dependent on the Synoptics.Hi Judy
When I said that Thomas was dependent on the synoptics I
meant to include indirect as well as direct dependence.
In fact I don't think the Thomas Kernel was directly based
on the separate Greek gospels as we have them but on sources
(oral or written) derived from them.
These sources may include an early Syriac/Aramaic paraphrase
of Matthew and an early Greek synoptic harmony.
I don't however see clear evidence in any of the Thomas sayings
with synoptic parallels that they are more primitive than the
synoptic versions of these sayings.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>