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

7482Re: [GTh] Thomas saying 64 and the synoptics

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    Mar 1, 2007
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: paul
      To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:12 AM
      Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas saying 64 and the synoptics


      --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Frank McCoy" <FMMCCOY@...> wrote:

      >> So, it appears, the scenario was: Th ---> Mt + Lk.

      <SNIP>


      >L. Michael White, in From Jesus To Christianity (2004:
      >HarperCollinsSanFrancisco), offers an analysis of this saying, "The
      >Great Dinner," which identifies the elements of this saying which
      >are common to all three versions pp. 140-1). White believes the
      >common elements represent the original Q version, however I think
      >the GThom version can also be viewed as the original. In GThom this
      >saying has an easily recognizable pattern to it. Except for the
      >final sentence, "for buyers and merchants shall not enter the places
      >of my Father," the GThom 64 is free of extraneous comment. As Funk
      >and others have noted, the last sentence is likely a later addition.

      >If GThom is the original then Matthew has altered it to say the Jews
      >rejected Jesus and so the message was given to the Romans. In fact
      >Matthew includes a clear reference to the Roman destruction of
      >Jerusalem: "The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed
      >those murderers and burned their city." This is the same reasoning
      >employed by Josephus. Matthew's version is also vindictive. Those
      >who decline to attend are not merely replaced, they are cast out.
      >So the original GThom may not refer to the Jews as the ones who
      >rejected the invitation. In GThom those who are replaced are those
      >who prioritize physical rather than spiritual concerns.

      >Finally, Luke's version is closer to GThom. In both versions there
      >is one invited who has married; in Matthew the feast itself is a
      >wedding feast. That supports the general idea that Luke has more
      >faithfully reproduces Q than Matthew has.

      =============================
      Hi Paul

      Thanks for an interesting analysis.

      IIUC you are suggesting that

      a/ In stage 1 original Thomas 64 was like final Thomas 64 but without the sentence "for buyers and merchants shall not enter the places of my Father".

      b/ in stage 2 Luke and Matthew modified original Thomas to produce the versions of the parable found in their gospels.

      c/ in stage 3 the last sentence was added to original Thomas 64 to produce final Thomas 64.

      However, this last sentence is so similar in theme to the rest of Thomas 64, (the rejection of those who prioritize physical rather than spiritual concerns) as to make it unlikely IMO that it is an addition several stages later on to original Thomas.

      (If Thomas 64 is post-synoptic developed by successive redaction of the synoptic version then "for buyers and merchants shall not enter the places of my Father". may well be the last stage of the redaction trajectory, but this is a somewhat different idea)

      Andrew Criddle





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic