Re: [GTh] Mark/Thomas Parallels (Thomas Order)
Thanks for your suggestion to check the backlist. Among the rest, I did note
your 13 May 10 message (#9378) declaring the topic of computational analysis
closed. Verdict accepted and apology herewith tendered; I will continue my
own investigation elsewhere.
For those equally new to the GThomas list, but interested in reviewing
previous discussion on the open GThomas archive, there were three principal
threads. "Probability of No Mark Parallels For 29 Sayings in Thomas" began
with #8594 (1 Feb 09, Rick Van Vliet), ran for quite a spell, faded out, and
then resumed on 2 May 2010. "The Markan Gap in Thomas" began with #9356 (11
May 2010, Mike Grondin). "Parallelomania" (#9352, Rick Hubbard) was perhaps
usefully balanced by a later caution about "Parallelophobia."
Among many other things of interest, I liked Rick Van Vliet's demonstration
that the Wald-Wolfowitz Runs Test fails ingloriously to detect manifestly
nonrandom distribution of A among B; I recall that Willi Feller made an
equally ludicous mistake about the pattern of V-bomb hits in London (which
he thought random, though to her credit, Florence David, who was on that
ground and analyzing the data at that time, got it right: bivariate
Gaussian). My hope to find the "Jesus Seminar" list that people were talking
about (though the actual specifications seem to have shifted somewhat during
the conversation) was at last seemingly gratified by Mike Grondin's posting
(the code seems to refer to The Five Gospels), which varies significantly
from the Koester list previously mentioned. That long a gap in Mark-related
Thomas passages (on the chart, it is GThos 68-98 inclusive) is definitely
merkwürdig, but there is no such gap in the Koester distribution, which
tests out (I am elsewhere informed) as indeed insigificantly different from
a random result. Koester recognizes Mark similarities at Thomas 71 and 79,
which (if correct) plugs the gap statistically.
Of course the assumption of Thomas literary unity underlying the various
statistical tests employed in this discussion may not be correct. If there
are internal compositional (not just formal) boundaries, the whole
statistical map would have to be redrawn.
Next thing to do along this line, I should think (I make this remark for the
GPG small audience, such matters being precluded for GThomas), is to
examine, and adjudicate, the differences of opinion as to what is a "Markan"
contact. Tim Lewis directed attention some time back to Tuckett's article
(Thomas and the Synoptics, NT 30 #2 (April 1988) 132-157), which spends some
time demonstrating that, inter alia, the Mustard Seed mention in Thomas 20
is clearly closer to Mark than to the later Second Tier Gospel variants. On
the other hand, Tuckett finds Thomas 5 and 16 to be closer to Luke.
Directionality perhaps still to be determined.
And so on.
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts