7194Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas
- Jul 21 12:02 PM--- In email@example.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@...> wrote:
> If Thomas is potentially based on a paraphrase of Matthew and/or
> Greek synoptic harmony, what do you make of what would then be aradical
> re-ordering of the text by Thomas? For example, all of the Thomasparables
> of the Realm/Kingdom that have synoptic parallels that are alsoRealm
> parables appear in Matthew 13, in vv 24-33 and 44-48 (separated bya passage
> about the use of parables). In Thomas they are sayings 8, 20, 57,76, 96
> and 109.sayings
> I'm not prepared to commit myself about whether or not the Thomas
> are more primitive than their Synoptic parallels, but it wouldseem to me
> strange that an author would take a nice, neat, thematic packagelike this
> one and pull it apart in such a fashion. It would, I think, beparticularly
> strange if Thomas were based on a paraphrase of Matthew. Isuppose the
> ordering in a Synoptic harmony would depend on which of theSynoptics the
> author chose to take as the primary one, but most of the Realmparables
> don't have parallels in Mark and Luke, so it would probably makesense to
> keep them together. The only one that appears in Mark and Luke isthe
> mustard seed.than of one
> This kind of thing speaks to me more of a shared common source
> being derived from the other, even through an intermediatesource. Another
> possibility would be that each derived from oral traditionsstemming from
> different eyewitness accounts. If we assume that Jesus told hisstories
> more than once (and why would you waste a good story by only usingit once
> if you were moving around?), then people who heard him in oneplace might
> well have slightly different versions of stories to pass on insignficantly
> different orders because that was they way Jesus told them whenthey heard
> them.Hi Judy
We know that a good deal of rearrangement of the order of Jesus'
sayings occurred in the formation of the Gospels.
Those who believe in Q usually hold that Matthew drastically
rearranged the order of sayings in Q for his own purposes.
Those who dispense with Q hold that Luke drastically rearranged
the order of sayings in Matthew for his own purposes.
If your concern is that the order of sayings in Thomas is less
structured than in the canonical Gospels then DeConick has an
interesting analysis of the structure of the Thomas kernel which
she sees as arranged in 5 sermons (sermon 1 eschatological urgency
sermon 2 discipleship sermon 3 committal to Jesus sermon 4 selection
of the elect sermon 5 the kingdom's imminence)These sermons in some
ways repeat the same material with a different emphasis Of the 6
kingdom parables you mentioned one occurs in each of the first four
sermons and two in the fifth. (I'm a bit uneasy saying this because
it is not clear whether saying 8 the fisherman parable is a kingdom
poarable IN THOMAS)
There is also Perrin's interesting analysis in 'Thomas and Tatian'
about how the order of the sayings in Thomas is determined by using
catchwords in Syriac.
My personal suspicion is that DeConick is over confident in assuming
that the order of the sayings in the Thomas kernel can be determined
from their order in existing Thomas. It is possible that the order
of sayings within Thomas was very fluid in the early stages of
Thomas' development and only achieved fixity in the late stages.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>