Re: [GTh] Thomas and the Synoptic Problem
- Frank - You stated in that post, "Because they fit the theme of chapter fourteen - the cost of discipleship." I assumed you meant all of chapter 14 rather
just a part of it Was this assumption incorrect?
Michael - I'd say that the assumption was incorrect simply because I was unclear. I did not mean to imply this theme for the entire chapter, only the appropriate section.
(Frank--response to response)
It is factually incorrect to assert that Mark has Jesus carrying the cross.
Michael - Of course it is wrong to state that Mark has Jesus carrying his cross, and I did not. I was restating that which I understood from you. I thought you were implying it in your statement: "One readily sees one weakness to the hypothesis that Thomas knew Luke and Matthew. That is, neither Synoptic gospel has Jesus carrying his cross." My argument has nothing to do with it. Your point is that Thomas' inclusion of Jesus carrying the cross somehow proves that it predates Mt and Lk. My point is that the same logic can be used to say that John was earlier than Mt and Lk. But, while any case for dating John cannot be airtight, his higher christology, his statement in 11:48 - "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place [temple] and our nation." NASB, his failure to mention the Sadducees, along with some external evidence points to a later date.
And if you need to argue an earlier date for John so you can secure an earlier date for Thomas so you can dispense with Q, you have to jump 3 hurdles. I'm willing to jump the last one with you (dispensing with Q), but the others are more difficult.
(Frank--response to response)This argument that Luke would add "wife" but not include "husband" unless he felt compelled to follow tradition appears to be incorrect--for, in Luke 18:29b, he is taking a Markan tradition he knows and adding "wife" to it, but not including "husband".
Michael - Luke's addition could easily have been from earlier oral tradition that included "wife", which he added to Mark and/or Matthew here.. It sounds like you are arguing against yourself. If Luke followed Mark for 18:29b and added to it, could he not simply have followed Matthew for 14:26-27 (instead of Thomas 55) and added wife and children to it? None of this shows that Luke needed Thomas for these statements.
Michael - And since you mention this section (Luke 18:24-30). Mt (19:24-30) and Luke mention the thrones from which the apostles will judge. He could not have been following ONLY Mark here because Mark does not include this. Why is there no mention of this in Thomas? How could Luke have known about it and placed it in exactly the same place as Matthew when Thomas has nothing on it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire purpose is to use Thomas to prove that Q is not needed. From your earlier post: "Here is a situation where, ISTM, adding Thomas to the brew appears to help build the case against Q." This is a classic Q text.
Michael - And I haven't forgotten that I still need to show how Luke's departures from Matthew's ordering be explained without Q. It shall be forthcoming.
( ) ( )
\ ( ) /
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]