Vorkosigan

Davies' Mark-Thomas overlap list

He seems to accept fewer parallels than Crossan. Some of them seem not to be parallels

*******
Mark 13:31
31: Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

111: The heavens and the earth will be rolled up in your presence. And one who lives from the Living One will not see death.

**********
Mark 13:21 21: And then if any one says to you, `Look, here is the Christ!' or `Look, there he is!' do not believe it.

113 His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom of the Father come?" He said to them, "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, Look here,' or 'Look there' Rather, the kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth and people don't see it."

*******
Mark 13:17: And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!

79) A woman from the crowd said to Him, "Blessed are the womb which bore you and the breasts which nourished you." He said to her, "Blessed are those who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, 'Blessed are the womb which has not conceived and the breasts which have not given milk.'"
*****************

Well, I must say, Vinnie, you've stimulated me to rethink everything here and understand this in a new way. Off to re-examine Thomas.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Found it -- had the wrong cite. Davie's website is back up. Here is the passage that demonstrates, to me, Thomas' dependence on Mark. Davies et al discussing it:

• GTh. 64b Businessmen and merchants will not enter the places of my Father.
  
  I will briefly survey the elements of Mark's passage: "On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there." [This is a summary statement defining what happened.] "He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts." [This is a narrative expansion of the previous sentence, unnecessary, strictly speaking, but appropriate to do, if one is writing a narrative, which Mark is doing.] "
  
  ......
  
  The whole Markan pericope is summed up at the beginning "Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there," which appears to be a narrativization of Thomas 64b "businessmen and merchants will not enter the places of my Father." The controversy conclusion and scriptural pastiche probably derives from Mark. Whatever "places of my Father" may have meant to the compiler of Thomas, the applicability of the phrase to the Jerusalem Temple seems obvious.

Davies and Johnson see v15b and v16 as narrative creation, but they are actually from Nehemiah 13:8-9

8 I was greatly displeased and threw all Tobiah's household goods out of the room. 9 I gave orders to purify the rooms, and then I put back into them the equipment of the house of God, with the grain offerings and the incense. . (NIV)

The claim that Mark depends on Thomas becomes acute at the higher level parallels. The author of Mark is paralleling the Elijah-Elisha Cycle here. Thomas Brodie (1998, p92) explains. At the climax of the two legend cycles, the Temple is cleansed (Jesus drives out the moneychangers, Jehu kills the priests of Ba'al). Both are annointed (2 Kings 9), accession with cloaks on the ground (2 Kings 9), waiting before taking over (2 Kings 9:12-13, Mark 11:11), challenge the authorities (2 Kings 9:22-10:27), Mark 11:11 - 12:12), and money is given to the Temple (2 Kings 12:5-17, Mark 12:41-44). As Brodie puts it (p93), ..."the basic point is clear: Mark's long passion narrative, while using distinctive Christian sources, coincides significantly both in form and content with the long Temple-centered sequence at the end of the Elijah-Elisha narrative."

In other words, the Temple was cleansed not because of something that the writer found in Thomas, but because it was dictated by his plot structure. Both the Parable of the Tenants and the "Little Apocalypse" fit into that structure as well.

Thus, Thomas 64b was taken from Mark, where it has its origin in any of several OT passages (following Doherty).

Malachi 3:1
"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.(NIV)

Hosea 9: 15
"Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious. (NIV)

Zechariah 14:21
...And on that day there will no longer be a merchant in the house of the LORD Almighty. (NIV)[some manuscripts read "Canaanite" for "merchant."]

Now, which is easier to imagine...that Mark went to Thomas for v15a: And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple" or that he got it from the OT like everything else about that passage, including the higher-level frameworks for it? Note that Zech 14 has already been a source elsewhere in Mark's gospel and that Zech 14:21 contains the phrase "on that day" used in many of the OT citations in Mark.

In other words, everything in the Temple Ruckus can be accounted for by Mark's structures and creative habits. It is Thomas who depends on Mark, not vice versa.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Thomas 64:

First, Crossan argued the third invite material appears secondary and to have come later.

Second, Thomas rarely ever offers concluding statements which interpret its parables as doing so is not consistent with the framework of the gospel : "whoever finds the interpretation of these secret sayings will not taste death". This also calls into question the textual stability of the last line.

It must also be noted that the single line is entirely consistent with the rest of Thomas' stance. Though coherence negatively leads to creation as much as it positively argues for a tradition so its a stalemate.

Otherwise, Thomas 64 is a Q parable (the supper) with virtually no textual correspondance to the versions found in Matthew and Luke. Furthermore, its features aren't allegorized into a parable about salvation history like the Mt and Lk versions.

We must also ask how common or generic is the phrase or notion "Buyers and Merchants" (will not enter the kingdom of heaven), especially for a group like that behind Thomas? Thomas negates all the standard ideas of living.

Patterson cites Cameron: "Ron Cameron has recently provided excellent information about the significance of using peculiar language "buyers and merchants" in this hermeneutical conclusion. These were the stereotypical "wheelers and dealers, hucksters, and hustlers" of the ancient world, "bent on greed and corruption, trafficking in sophistry, pandering to deceit." (Patt p. 141).

Saying then, that this single phrase comes soley from Mark is without merit. There is no indication Mark invented this phrase, or was the first or only to apply it to the lips of Jesus, or that Thomas must have read Mark to have gotten this phrase.

I also make no comment about the historicity of the temple incident. The evidence is far to shaky to state anything conclusive.

But asn oted in the Davies article : "At the outset the record must have been a great deal simpler than it is now. Originally it would have said that Jesus protested against the presence of the sellers of merchandise and money-changers in the Temple. Quite naturally the saying of Jesus was transformed into an incident, and, at the third stage of development, the saying and the story to which it had given rise were combined (Goguel 1960: 415).

"""""Now, which is easier to imagine...that Mark went to Thomas for v15a: And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple" or that he got it from the OT like everything else about that passage, including the higher-level frameworks for it?""""""""

That Mark went to the OT or popular tradition or wherever. But the problem is this does not mean Thomas got it from Mark. And if THomas can be indirectly dependent upon Mark so too can Mark be indirectly dependent upon an early version of Thomas.

Therefore, this saying could be from THomas or any other source. Mark took it and gave it a story. Again, we are left with needing a methodology for determining dependence or independence. As far as I know, there are two ways:

The order and wording is so similar as to necessitate literary dependence. Thomas does not fit here.

Or to find specific redactional material or a CLEAR Markan creation in Thomas. Of course, the more examples the stronger, as one could have slipped in in a later layer or crept in through the WELL documented process of scribal harmonization.

One has to show how the torso of Thomas is dependent upon Mark. I do not feel this can be done. One also has to show THomas is not dependent upon Mark. I would say the lack of verbal correspondance, and the lack of order and Markan redaction fits the bill.

One can explain the order as Thomas tearing apart synoptic order. The wording as indirect dependence but then comes the lack of significant redactional material.

Vinnie

Rick Sumner

Actually, you explicitly cited historicism, if I misunderstood what you meant, then apologies.

This is inappropriate. It was a reasonable conclusion on what you'd meant by what you'd said, particularly given your plentiful past comments on Q and the historicist position. Flaming is uncalled for.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

The single line doesn't look like it coheres with anything to me. 64b has nothing in common with 64a. A good example of how subjective the coherence criterion is!

Right. The context is clear elsewhere, but not in Thomas. That suggests something....

Thomas thinks he negates all the standard ideas of living. Actually, Thomas is pretty conventional in his unconventionality. Do you know of any marginalized group anywhere that suggests that businessmen will enter the paradise of the marginalized group? The Communists made a whole political philosophy about denying this. Such critiques are standard among marginalized groups. This does suggest the possibility of coincidence in its appearance in both Thomas and Mark.

Neither Cameron nor Patterson knows this.

There is no indication that either of them did this! In fact, all indications are that Mark got it from the OT.

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of fiction. There is little or no evidence in favor of historicity (none at all, in fact). The evidence strongly supports Markan creation in the typical Markan fashion of filling in story frames with data from the OT.

This is typical NT scholar use of the declarative method "it is because I say so." No evidence suggests that "the record must have been simpler." No record of this incident exists prior to Mark. The claim that "the record must have been simpler" is an assumption of redaction criticism, not a historical judgment (based on what evidence?) Patterson claims that "Quite naturally the saying of Jesus was transformed into an incident" although the opposite would be just as natural (aren't the various references to the Temple's destruction in the NT an example of a historical event becoming a saying????). Then Patterson talks about the "third stage" even though no evidence suggests there was a second, let alone a first.

Indeed, the evidence suggests the exact opposite: the author of mark created the Temple Ruckus using his SOP. Patterson is arguing, essentially, that Mark relied on 2 Sam 9-10 for Mark 11:1-11 (annointing), then the writer picked up Micah 7:1 for Mark 11:12-14 (fig tree cursing), then he rolls into the Temple and suddenly veers into Thomas for one saying 11:15a, then it is back to Nehemiah for 11:15b and 11:16. This is what happens when you think in pericopes and not in higher structures and SOPs. Mark's hypertextuality is Temple focused AND internally focused -- Mark likes to return to certain books that he has used elsewhere. The nod in the Temple Ruckus is to Zech 14, which he has used elsewhere. Zech 14:4 is one of the most famous verses of messianic legend, and the whole passage is about how the nations of the world will worship in the Jerusalem Temple on the day of the lord. It's a textbook example of Mark's hypertextual focus on the Temple.

Sure, and he could be dependent on space aliens too. But on the balance, the evidence of Mark's typical practices and the fact that the Temple Ruckus is entirely his invention, suggests that he didn't get it from Thomas.

Vinnie, this simply ignores the points I made earlier. The Temple Ruckus isn't built off of 11:15a. It is fallout from Mark's decision to use the Elijah-Elisha cycle as the basis of his gospel and fill it in with the OT.

No, Vinnie, there are THREE ways. The third way is to show, as I have, that the Temple Ruckus is a Markan fiction off of the OT. In other words, all one has to do is show that the Temple Ruckus is not a "third stage development" off of a particular saying, but show that it is de novo and based on principles that have nothing to do with 11:15a, but with Mark's typical use of the OT. Once that happens, then it hardly matters whether there is Markan redaction in Thomas or not; we know Mark's version came first and one way or another Thomas depends on Mark.

Your argument is actually based on the underlying assumptions of redaction-criticism: there is a source of sayings going back to Jesus that Mark has redacted. Thomas is important because it validates the source assumptions of redaction criticism.

It says nothing either way. People have been compiling sayings attributed to Jesus in various forms for two thousand years. And order is not entirely lacking; Thomas has preserved it in 65-66. The order argument won't help; it is just as applicable to Mark. Why would Mark have broken up the order in Thomas? And if he did, why couldn't Thomas had done it? How is it that you accept Mark breaking up the order of the sayings, but not Thomas? It seems that there are some unexamined assumptions in your argument, Vinnie.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

It was not meant to be flaming. I apologize if you took offense.

But you should be aware, given that you have followed my plentiful past comments, that I am not a Jesus Myther, but a Jesus agnostic.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Ted Weeden coming with a point in favor of Thomas not knowing Mark...