tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post917347837316339705..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: How was Thomas Written?Mark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-58005347330015345552007-02-22T11:49:00.000-05:002007-02-22T11:49:00.000-05:00Might the same argument about the "missing middle"...Might the same argument about the "missing middle" be made about the relationship between Mark 8 and Matthew 16? :)<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that if one takes seriously the primarily (but not entirely) oral mode of transmission of sayings of Jesus in early Christianity, then the fact that a particular text (whether the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Matthew) is later than and probably knew some other text (such as the Gospel of Mark) is not the only issue that needs to be considered. In any given case, the later author may be "correcting" the earlier text to the version as he always heard it, rather than strictly speaking redacting the earlier text. And so it seems to me that every single saying and narrative must be evaluated separately, rather than assuming that the earliest <I>text</I> always gives us the earliest <I>form</I>.<BR/><BR/>James<BR/><BR/>http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-26879372594360316102007-02-22T10:40:00.000-05:002007-02-22T10:40:00.000-05:00Thanks, Danny. It's partly a strategic issue. It...Thanks, Danny. It's partly a strategic issue. It is clear to me that the term "literary dependence" is a major stumbling block to people who think that Thomas is not familiar with the Synoptics, perhaps because they look at intra-Synoptic issues and find Thomas's parallels with the Synoptics so different (e.g. see especially DeConick's fourth point under literary dependence). Talking about familiarity is a helpful way of focusing on the mode of Thomas's use of the Synoptics. But yes, ultimately we are often talking about clear use of the Synoptics, especially in cases like Thomas 79.1-2, and several others. So for me it is a question of observing what the connotations of the phrase "literary dependence" appear to have for those are arguing for a different view.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-44619794486077626762007-02-22T10:29:00.000-05:002007-02-22T10:29:00.000-05:00Mark,I still don't understand why the word "litera...Mark,<BR/>I still don't understand why the word "literary" cannot be used to describe the relationship between thomas and the synoptics as long as we are understanding literacy in ancient terms to encompass oral and aural aspects.<BR/><BR/>I'm also unclear how the word familiarity clarifies matters. In the particular case you have worked on between Luke and Thomas, it actually seems to muddy the issue. You argued in your paper (which is great by the way) that distinctive Lukan redactional traits appear in Thomas 79. This moves beyond the realm of "familiarity" to literary dependence. This of course does not mean, as DeConick caricatures it, that the author cut & pasted it, but surely we move beyond familiarity to dependence at this point, no?<BR/><BR/>I definitely agree with you that we need to focus on the 50% that is different. <BR/><BR/>DannyDanny Zachariashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09819589295672075138noreply@blogger.com