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

RE: [Synoptic-L] FH and Thomas

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    On: FH and Thomas Bruce [Previously]: . . . the failure of M Goulder to prove unidirectionality of common material between Mt and Lk . . . Ron Price: While I
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 2, 2011
      On: FH and Thomas

      Bruce [Previously]: . . . the failure of M Goulder to prove
      unidirectionality of common material between Mt and Lk . . .

      Ron Price: While I agree with this judgement, I nevertheless see Goulder as
      having been partly right. / For it seems to me clear that Goulder and
      Goodacre have between them made a thoroughly convincing case for Luke's
      dependency on Matthew in both narrative material and in some longer

      Bruce: Same statement. The Mt/Lk material is bidirectional. M Goulder has
      made a good case for the part of the material that is in fact Mt > Lk
      directional. He is wrong for the other part of the material, which is
      instead Lk > Mt directional. Ron's remark is like saying that the phlogiston
      theory was right for materials which lose weight on burning, but wrong for
      materials which gain weight on burning. The bottom line is that the
      phlogiston theory was wrong about burning. I have a great affection for
      Michael (in real life, he and I were on a sort of first-name basis, albeit
      via correspondence), and I love reading his stuff, including his Psalms
      stuff, but the planet turns, and the bottom line is the bottom line.

      Ron: As for the second century GTh, . . .

      Bruce: Needs proof. I would prove it this way: gThos 47:3 = Lk 5:39, nobody
      after drinking old wine wants new wine. This violently reverses the meaning
      of what precedes it in Luke, and it is absent in Mark, Matthew, and, I think
      suggestively, in Bezae. Then it is a late addition to Lk, and most plausibly
      an anti-Marcionite addition (defending old = OT tradition, which Marcion had
      sought to jettison), perhaps c150. Given this origin of Lk 5:39 in the
      history of 2c dispute about the text of Luke, it is not likely to have been
      drawn from Thomas or anywhere else, and we thus have not only a
      directionality, but a date (and probably a place, namely Rome). If gThos
      were a single text, we would have to date it to the latter 2c at earliest.
      But Thos may not be a single text, as witness the many stratification
      proposals. One simple stratification proposal is that gThos was at one point
      confined only to what is attested by the Greek text, namely gThos 1-39. If
      we for the moment regard this as a possible core, note that its date is not
      affected by the conclusion just reached about gThos 47.3. It might be
      earlier. So also for the other theories. These things have to be grasped
      entire to be solved.

      Ron: . . . its impact on synoptic problem solutions is restricted to its

      Bruce: I very much doubt that we can assume this in advance of considering
      what gThos actually is, and does. Anything may affect anything. What, for
      instance, about Luke? Meaning, Luke the actual guy? Among the things that
      were certainly available to him were his own experience of Christian
      preaching (sermons), and Christian worship (prayers, baptismal formulae);
      his whole life as a Christian. Is it really to be supposed that he began
      work on his Gospel by forgetting all this, wiping his mind clean of it, and
      then, with his disk suitably erased, and just as stupid as any of the rest
      of us concerning First Century matters, going to the reading room of the
      British Museum, sitting down, getting his paper and pencil ready, and
      calling for the attendant to bring him their second best copy of Mark?
      Bultmann buys this scenario, or something very like it. I somehow doubt it.

      Ron: I suggest it is neutral in regard to the Farrer Theory, it positively
      supports the radical form of the 3ST (which posits a written collection of
      Jesus sayings), and it leads to an astonishing lack of critical thinking
      when used in support of the 2ST (whose posited source cannot properly be
      described as a written collection of Jesus sayings).

      Bruce: No text which might be dated even in part to the 1c can be a priori
      excluded from relevance for the FH or for any other imaginable H. There may
      be textual relations, and those relations may have a directionality. As for
      "posited," that is exactly one of the troubles. People posit too much and
      observe too little. That is not the correct order of operations.

      Who is the main figure in gThos? It is Thomas? There are lines in the text
      to that effect, whence a whole literature. But there are also lines which
      suggest that the text at one point took James of Jerusalem as its guiding
      figure. Does this make any sense? Well, at least it might, since James (to
      my surprise, but I am here to learn from the texts and not to tell them what
      to do) is associated with a number of Gnostic documents, and gThos at its
      beginning (at the point, if such existed, when #12 was its concluding
      saying) may have been one of them. Are there any contacts of text or
      doctrine between gThos (or at least its first dozen sections) and the other
      Jacobean Gnostic literature? What about the pseudo-Clementine literature
      (this gets us into Ebionite territory, but why not?), which also makes much
      of James as a central adjudicating authority? I haven't tried to find out.
      But presumably someone has, and I would appreciate hearing what their
      results might have been.

      And we haven't even touched the gThos/gJn contacts. Are there any in the
      first 12 gThos units? According to the list before me, No. Are there any in
      the first 39 units? Some are claimed; I am not sufficiently convinced to
      transcribe them here. Does anyone have a Th/Jn list they are happy with, and
      would share?

      E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Mike Grondin
      For those who are confused by Bruce s note, no, you are not missing a GThomas note from Ron Price. Bruce cross-posted to several lists and failed to make it
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 2, 2011
        For those who are confused by Bruce's note, no, you are not missing a GThomas
        note from Ron Price. Bruce cross-posted to several lists and failed to make it clear
        when he sent his response to Ron here that Ron's comments appeared on another list.
        Mike Grondin
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.