8256RE: [GTh] Thomas vs Synoptics
- Oct 4, 2008Hi Richard,
>I realise this. What I wanted to do was raise awareness of the ways in
> Scholars who argue for Thomas' dependence on one or more of
> the Synoptics for some of the parallels between Thomas and
> the Synoptics do not necessarily do this because of a
> canonical bias, they do this because the redactional work of
> one or more of the evangelists can be found in Thomas.
> Obviously it is not always that easy to determine what is
> redactional and therefore it is often possible to come up
> with alternative solutions. Even Stephen Patterson (who
> favors an independence view) agrees that Markan, Matthean or
> Lukan redaction can be found in Thomas in about 10 places (a
> proponent of the Farrer hypothesis would add many more to
> this list). This should not be brushed away so easily. The
> question of course remains what explains these instances?
> Patterson would favor late scribal harmonization or perhaps
> secondary orality.
which the perspective from which people approach a text, the questions they
bring to it, if you like, can influence the way they interpret it. So, if
you approach Thomas asking "what evidence can I find that Thomas is
dependent on the synoptic material?" you will potentially reach different
conclusions to the ones you will reach if you ask "are there any passages in
Thomas that are similar to and/or the same as those in the synoptics and if
so, what might that mean?" The answer you give, especially to the first
question will be further influenced by whether or not you have anything
invested in the outcome. That is, if you want the answer to be "lots of
evidence" you are more likely to include tenuous evidence. If you want it
to be "none at all", then you will discard anything that could reasonably be
> Finding Thomas to be influenced by one or more of theI think it is possible to go back further than this, though, and say that
> Synoptics also does not mean that one considers every
> parallel between them as a sign that Thomas is secondary. It
> can very well be the case that some of the sayings in Thomas
> are prior to their synoptic parallel. Given the popularity of
> the Synoptic Gospels in the second century it would not be at
> all surprising that some of their sayings were then added to
> the Thomas collection.
the fact that there are parallels between Thomas and the synoptics does not
mean that Thomas is necessarily influenced by one or more of the synoptics.
It may be that the influence went in the other direction, or that they
shared a common source for that particular passage. Of the material that I
am studying (ie the parables of the kingdom/reign in Thomas that have
parallels in the synoptics) only one is close to verbatim - the parable of
the mustard seed - and it is an anomally. It is the only one in Thomas that
compares the kingdom/reign to an object rather than to a person.
>No, indeed. Good evidence is essential, but I think you get good evidence
> Having said all this I must agree that some (evangelical or
> conservative) scholars are biased against Thomas and will
> favor Thomas'
> dependence on the Synoptics. The positive and uncritical
> manner in which they responded to Nicholas Perrin's work
> nicely illustrates this.
> However, this is to be expected, and should not lead to the
> counter- reaction of assuming independence without good evidence.
by asking the right questions in the first place. That's certainly true
when you're questioning eyewitnesses.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>