Re: Doubting Thomas 2
- Stephen Carlson wrote:
> As for Thomas' dependence on the Synoptics, I think we need to takeRecall that while we may disagree on the specifics, we are
> seriously Mahlon's lecture to Ryan about the documentary evidence.
> The fact is, in the actual, extant, physical, real texts of Thomas
> (the Coptic version), there are signs of dependence on the Synoptics.
> Even Patterson admits to such passages [pp.92-3], specifically:
united in the belief that Patterson's arguments aren't all that
they could be. I might be happy to go along with Patterson and
admit these instances of scribal harmonization... but I don't
see that I have to.
> Thom 32 (nor can it be hidden) from Matt 5:14b. [Also Greek Thomas!]Surely we can agree that it is unlikely that Mt has invented this
saying, it is inappropriate for its context in Mt, if nothing else.
If Mt did not invent it, it comes from tradition. If it is
acknowledged that a saying was in oral tradition, and it is
discovered that it is in Thomas, we cannot assume ipso facto
that it derives from Matthew. Thomas shows that there were
two city sayings (banal proverbs typical of early Jesus material)
"cannot fall" "cannot be hidden" which are combined in Thomas.
What of this requires a Matthew dependence conclusion?
> Thom 39:1 (Pharisees and scribes) from Matt 23:13.Th 39a, by its structure, requires there to be some identifiable
party or parties who are criticized. Form-critically, the two sayings
are rather different, Mt has a "woe" in direct address and Th has
a declarative indirect statement so literary dependence is dim.
Thomas' "Pharisees and Scribes" is not identifical to Mt's "Scribes
and Pharisees," which may be trivial, but perhaps not so in the
context of argument based on tiny agreements between Th and
Mt/Lk... Mt has a very decided preference for "Pharisees and
Still and all, the phrase "scribes and pharisees" or "pharisees
and scribes" is to be found in all four of the gospels (counting
John 8:3) and even appears in the Testimony of Truth
" there has taken hold of them the old leaven of the Pharisees and
the scribes of the Law. the Pharisees and the scribes,
it is they who belong to the archons who have authority" where
the duality replaces both the Markan Pharisees and Herod and
the Matthean Pharisees and Saducees. In the Gospel
of Peter we have "VIII. 28 But the scribes and Pharisees and elders
gathered one with another..." Conclusion -- the pairing of
scribes and pharisees is not identifiably Matthean but a part of
general Christian terminology for Jesus' opponents and so, in a
Thomas saying that demands by its structure an identification of
opponents by its structure, we should not be surprised to find it.
> Thom 45:3 (which is in his heart) from Luke 6:45.But cf. Mark 7:21, Mt 12:34. There is good/evil brought forth from the
heart in Mk, Lk, Mt, Th. This does not show a specifically Lukan
motif. Very weak argument here. "In his heart" was part of the
original probably in its first and second element, I'd say. Our
authors variously omit one or the other "in his heart" and switch
the saying around anyhow. This doesn't lead to a Thomas
dependent on Luke for the phrase conclusion but rather the
conclusion that "in his heart" was an oral tradition factor.
> Thom 104:1,3 (prayer and fasting) from Luke 5:33.You must be prepared to argue that Luke would have deliberately
added a term "prayer" in a manner that implies through
synechdoche that Jesus' disciples
did not pray in order for this point to be valid. I.e. if "prayer" is
specifically Lukan invention, the argument is strong. Otherwise
one must assume that Luke knows of the Thomas version and
was influenced by it and, similarly and quite reasonably, Mark
can be assumed to have known that uncongenial element and
left it out.
> Thom 104:3 allusion to Jesus' death from Luke 5:33-35.There's no allusion to Jesus' death in Thomas here. And far as I can
tell Luke 5:33-35 // Mk and Mt anyhow. I don't understand the point.
> In order, Patterson sees:Odd. Since the city saying interrupts the flow of Mt's line
> Thom 32+33:2-3 influenced by Matt 5:14b-15.
of thought ("light of the world" 14a then "light a lamp" 15)
it doesn't seem reasonable to see here that a city saying 14b
is clearly Matthean redaction.
> Thom 43:3+44+45:1-4 influenced by Matt 12:31-35.Or vice versa. Or just random chance. These are neither
the same sayings (they are somewhat similar) nor in the
same order. So Thomas changed the order but kept them
nearby each other and changed the sayings rather considerably?
Not much proof of literary dependence in that hypothesis.
> Thom 65+66 influenced by Mark 12:1-11 et parr.Much stronger argument that the opposite is true. See the
long discussion in my Thomas/Mark article part 1.
> Thom 92:1+93+94 influenced by Matt 7:6-7.Where Thomas has reconstructed elements of a parallel
structure missing in Matthew, left out the opening phrase
of Mt. 7:7 and changed the grammatical structure from direct
to indirect address but all the while keeping the order
because of Matthew thus showing dependence? I don't think so.
For order-of-sayings one can also just appeal to simple random
chance. After all ANY same-sequence between Th and ANY
gospel will be said to prove Thomas' dependence. So you
have W sayings in order in Mark
X in order in Mt
Y in order in Lk
Z in order in Th
I don't think we can say statistically that we are so certain that
these will never be in the same order that when one or two instances
of same-order appear we have a strong argument for much of
anything... and statistically twice as much less if we allow for inversion
to be probative of something (as in the following example you
> Now, sure, one could appeal to textual corruption or scribalBut one doesn't have to (see above).
Since you do not believe that textual
corruption or scribal harmonization took place in the Thomas
textual tradition, against all evidence and the opinion of every
text critical scholar, I have tried to show that you do not have
to do so to account for the similarities you adduced above.
> But let's recognize this for what it is: itThat is correct if we assume that no textual
> is a plea to believe evidence that does not exist for Thomas
> in opposition to evidence that actually does exist.
corruption or scribal harmonization took place in the Thomas
textual tradition and so this is "evidence that does not exist."
But more than just this is needed, we need also to write
off "oral tradition" as "evidence that does not exist" as well.
This leaves us with only two possibilities,
Thomas is dependent on the synoptics or the synoptics
are dependent on Thomas. If this is what we are left with,
having discarded the possibility of oral-tradition influence
on our authors and the possibility of scribal harmonization,
I'll choose the latter of the two, Thomas' influence on the
> These are just the examples where Patterson was forced to give upYou have a typical traditional banal proverb about wine. It occurs in
> his special pleading. There are many many more in which he does
> manage to concoct some explanation, but it appears very lame. Take,
> for example, Th47:3-5. Th47:3 (nobody drinks old wine and immediately
> wants to drink new wine) echoes Lk5:39, which Luke added to Mk2:22,
> the context of Th47:4-5. Luke's redactorial activity in Lk5:39 is
> evident: it is new material added to Mark, it forms an inclusio,
> and it uses a Lukan gnomic OUDEIS. Therefore, inclusion of this
> saying in this context is a prima facie case of Lukan redaction of
> Mark known to Thomas. Patterson's retort assumes that Luke did not
> make up the saying, but knew it from tradition, from which Thomas
> "independently recognized the sense of including it here." [p.42]
> In other words, coincidence. Multiply this reasoning by the seventy
> or so examples, and you can see why I eventually ran out of patience
> with his independence argument.
Thomas and Luke in conjunction with another saying having to do with
wine although against Thomas' supposed tendency to keep synoptic
sayings in order (see your previous arguments) the order is
reversed. Luke's saying is definitely Lukan, but Thomas, recognizing
Lukan redaction, alters the saying to appear proverbial rather than
Lukan. I don't think this will convince very many objective
I agree with Stephen C. that if we accept his premises that there was
no such thing as scribal harmonization or textual corruption,
and no such thing as oral tradition so that it is nonsense to say
"Thomas knew it from tradition" then he has a point. Otherwise
he doesn't. To say, as Patterson does, that two authors took the
same saying from oral tradition is not, in my opinion, "special
> Finally, last fall Antonio and I presented a literary analysis thatWhat we found, in considering this so called "literary analysis"
> showed that secondary synoptic tradition (Luke and Matthew) is
> consistently the mediating link between Thomas and Mark. Since
> Markan priority is affirmed by almost all (pace the neo-Griesbachians),
> this literary feature indicates that Thomas's affinities to the
> Triple Tradition is not with Mark (expected if Thomas were early)
> but with Matthew and Luke (expected if Thomas is late).
the last (second) time was that the supposed Lk or Mt agreements
with Thomas against Mark were
A. So diverse in nature that no general statement could be made
regarding them. Some had to do with a word, some with sayings
nearby each other, some to do with a phrase (but a different
phrase entirely!) added by Thomas and another evangelist, and so
B. Most of the ones presented by Antonio were spurious even upon
his own admission.
C. One had to rule out coincidence, oral tradition influence, scribal
harmonization by hypothesis in order to draw any conclusion at all.
If you'd like to go again a third time I'm game. But the last of it
I remember was the thesis that "Antonio and I agree" should be
in and of itself probative of an argument LACKING specific
significant instances presented in writing. I hope this is wrong and
that some detailed evidence was transmitted that I didn't respond
to and I can now look into.... but nonesuch that I can recall.
I don't mean to sound dismissive of you, Stephen, (and the extent
of my two letters should be a compliment) because I think
you could make as good an argument from evidence that
a) Thomas could not have been Mark's source or
b) Thomas is dependent upon the synoptics
as any other person alive. But you haven't done so. I wish you
would. I'd enjoy that greatly. But I cannot and do not take your
word for it that you could do so in light of the fact that you
haven't. Nor can I accept the idea that Patterson is thoroughly
mistaken simply because you say so.
I hope you can recall letters of mine about Patterson generally
where I pointed out strongly that poor Patterson is constantly
forced into argument against the air, not against anyone. He is
arguing the negative against a non-existent postive case. And we
find it said that since "Patterson has not proven Thomas to be
independent therefore we know Thomas is dependent" is a
reasonable conclusion. It is not. The burden of proof is on the
affirmative and the affirmative cannot be that Patterson has failed
to prove a non-presented case to be in error.
> Unlike Patterson's special pleading (coincidence, textual corruption,Correct. If we rule out the possibility of coincidence, textual
> could have been in oral tradition), these arguments have cumulative
> force: they all point in the direction of a second century text.
corruption, oral tradition, that's the conclusion we are drawn to.
But that's the price you pay to reach it... the denial of factors
that all others in scholarship know exist and take for granted.