Family Man

A question for the more knowledgable members of this august forum.

While very few dispute that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark, I often hear it claimed that John is independent. But how can we know this to be true?

Since we don't know who John was, we really don't know what his sources were. What if a Jesus story was reported in a single place, and the story repeated in the various Christian communities? Thus Mark and John might be telling the same story gathered (albeit unknowingly) from the same source? Could that be considered independent?

Or take Paul. Some would have us (in recent threads) believe that his reporting of Jesus's burial to be independent. But could it be that he is merely repeating what other Christians had told him? Is that a truly independent reporting of such an event?

Personally, I have my doubts about the independence of these reports but I would like my doubts either dispelled or affirmed by those who know more than me.

Peter Kirby

Family Man,

The question that you raise is a troublesome one for those knowledgeables in even more august forums (I mean professors at universities). Restricting myself just to New Testament documents, the following possible relationships are some of those debated:

1. Mark & Matthew
2. Mark & Luke
3. Matthew & Luke
4. Q & Mark
5. Mark & John
6. Luke & John
7. Synoptics & Thomas
8. John & Epistle of John
9. Colossians & Ephesians
10. Jude & 2 Peter
11. Apocalypse of Peter & 2 Peter
12. Galatians & Acts
13. OT & Four Gospels
14. Homer & Four Gospels
15. Philo & Four Gospels
16. Mystery Religions & Four Gospels
17. Lectionary & Four Gospels
18. Dead Sea Scrolls & New Testament
19. Polycarp & Pastorals
20. 1 Thessalonians & 2 Thessalonians
21. 1 Peter & 2 Peter
22. John & 2 Peter
23. Synoptics & 2 Peter
24. Four Gospels & Didache
25. Four Gospels & Gospel of Peter
26. Four Gospels & Egerton Gospel
27. Canonical Mark & Secret Mark
28. John & Justin Martyr

And I feel like I could go on forever. Anyone who can publish some "hard, fast, and complete rules" for determining dependence would be catapulted quickly to academic superstardom. In leiu of that, I will offer just a couple terminological suggestions. The term "literary relationship" means that, with two texts, the following holds: (1) text A makes direct use of text B, (2) text B makes direct use of text A, or (3) text A and text B make literary use, directly or indirectly, of some text G (I picked the letter for "Grundschrift"). The term "relative independence" means either that (3) holds or that the two texts do not have a literary relationship.

Hope that helps.

best,
Peter Kirby

Family Man

Thanks Peter. I guess I'm suggesting that we really can't claim independence in the cases I mentioned in my OP because we really can't rule out case 3. Just something that was bothering me, and now I know what to say the next time it comes up.

Vinnie

Well, I was going to give you a sneak peak at my article on Thomas. I have a section devoted to "determining literary dependence" (direct or indirect) but the diskette is acting up so I can't :banghead:

Crossan devotes a section to this in BoC and I pretty much relied on his discussion.

The most complicated view is indirect literary dependence. Take the canonical Gospels for instance. All were built from ongoing oral tradition (and literary traditions!) but oral tradition continued after them but they inevitably modified and contaminated that oral tradition. As you go further into the 2d century it becomes increasingly harder to claim a text is independent of the cnaonicals given their increasing popularity (esp. Matthew).

Matthew written around 90 C.E. may have been taught, studied and preached for 20, 30 or 40 years and this would have spread to different communities. It simply modified the tradition and later traditions are morel likely to be somehow dependent on these earlier traditions. That is why a cutoff rule is needed in Christian origin and Jesus discussions. After a while its impossible to rule out indirect literary contamination on all your sources. They lose any potential independent value.

Of course someone told Paul. Thats the whole point of independence and multiple attestation. The assumption is the earlier we go, the morel ikely the material about Jesus will be authentic.

If Paul and Mark both mention burial traditions and Mark received his material independent of Paul and someone who knew Paul, it can be safely maintained that neither created the incident and that burial predates both of them. In the case of material found in the Pauline corpus (written in the fifties), it probably put us back at least in the forties. In this case we would further need to look at Roman burial practices at the time to evaluate the plausibility of this potential historical datum.

If you believe Jesus existed, was crucified by Rome and that Rome would have allowed a burial then the possibility of this datum being historical is pretty high in my opinion.

Of course, say we have four independent datums on burial:

Adam------------Bob-------------Cris---------------Dom

These four independent sources may trace back to two indepdnent sources:

Jack and Jill

Jack told both Adam and Bob and Jill told both Cris and Dom

Furthermore, maybe Jack witnessed the event and Jill was told about it by one who witnessed the event.

Or maybe Jack and Jill's material can be traced back to a single source:

There would be no question of multiple attestation or inependence here. Since this would presumably be an eyewitness source, the presumption granted to the source is higher than for second and third generation references. When Paul says he spoke with Peter this datum is granted presumption as eyewitness testimony until it is demonstrated otherwise. Neither the gospels or pretty much any other datums receive this kind of presumption in HJ studies. These woudl be isolated instances.

Multiple attestaion and independence only bring us to an earlier time period than the texts under consideration. This is supposed to bring us closer to the historical reality behind later traditions. Its all about trying to get closer to the oral period that was immersed with eyewitness testimony.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I got it working now:

Determining Dependence

Before proceeding further a brief aside on how dependence is determined is in order. In its most simple understanding two issues emerge:

1. When an account presupposes another (e.g. Q2 presuming Q1.) or when an account contains another author’s specific redactional material direct or indirect literary dependence is necessitated.

2. The wording and/or order is so similar that a shared source or written dependence must be posited.

John Dominic Crossan devotes a small section to this issue in the birth of Christianity. He asks, “How can you tell if one gospel is or is not dependent upon another? What happens, for example, if you have twin texts that are too similar in order and / or content for coincidence to serve as an explanation? There are four possible explanations why two texts might be too similar for sheer coincidence. The first two involve a common source (oral or scribal) used independently of one another by later authors. The second two involve literary dependence (direct or indirect) of a later author on an earlier one.”4

Crossan goes on to delineate several examples:

1. Common Oral Matrix

Luke 12:35 (RSV)

Let your loins be girded
And your lamps burning

Didache 16:1

Let your lamps be not quenched
And your loins be not ungirded.

Crossan commented on this classic example as follows: “The core of the oral matrix is those twin symbols of readiness in no set order. Actualizations must then choose either lamps/loins or loins/lamps as sequence, and either positive (“be”) or negative (“be not”) as formulation. I prefer that explanation to direct dependence of either text on the other.”5


2. Common Literary Source

Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9 are extremely similar. Despite divergent introductions, Jesus’ saying in both, which encompasses over sixty words in Greek, is verbatim the same in Matthew and Luke (with the exception of four minor changes). As Crossan wrote, “Those twin versions are not the independent actualizations of an oral matrix but the very, very faithful reproductions of a written source.”6

3. Direct literary Dependence

Crossan writes, “But what if some common source, be it oral matrix or written text, is not an adequate explanation? What if one text is dependent on the other? How do you tell when that is so and which one has used the other? . . .There are certainly no easy answers to that question (as if the shorter or longer were always first, or the better-written or worse-written were always first). The process is much more complicated in theory and much more controversial in practice.

[Direct literary dependence] must be supported by two mutually supportive arguments: one is genetic relation and the other is redactional confirmation. Genetic relationship means that certain elements of order and content that are characteristically Markan are found in Matthew and Luke We are not talking of general tradition common to all three gospels but of specific editorial aspects of Markan sequence or style whose presence in those other two texts indicates copying.7

Crossan goes on to point out the classic example of Markan sandwiches or Markan intercalation. The intercalation is a distinctive Markan compositional device. As Crossan noted, “The device has two elements. First, literary presentation: Event A begins (A1), then Event B begins and finishes (B), and finally, Event A finishes (A2). Second, theological meaning: the purpose of the intercalation is not mere literary show; it presumes that those two events-call them the “framing event” and the “insert event”-are mutually interactive, that they interpret one another to emphasize Mark’s theological intention. It is this combination of literary structure and theological import that makes those intercalations peculiarly if not uniquely Markan.”8

He presented six (some scholars add more) widely accepted cases of this phenomenon in the gospel of Mark and went on to say that, “What reassures me that the device does not move from either Matthew or Luke into Mark but vice versa is the fact that . . . of Mark’s nine sandwiches, Matthew retains mark’s A-B-A pattern five times and Luke retains it four times . . . it is the presence of such specific, personal, or compositional elements, be they order or content, topic or style, that is the surest evidence of the dependence of one text upon another.”9

Crossan went on to note that numerous examples of such material need to be checked in case after case so that the argument is finally cumulative. He also stated that there are no absolute conclusions on dependence and nothing is beyond debate. But all scholars must adopt some conclusions regarding dependence or they could not academically study early Christian literature.

Crossan also goes on to point out a support of genetic relationship: redactional confirmation. He said, “It is not really a second proof but a way of testing some postulated genetic relationship. If, for reasons such as those given in the preceding example, you postulate Matthean and Lukan dependence on Mark, you should be able to explain every omission, addition, or alteration in Matthew and Luke over their Markan source. Because, of course, we still have Mark”10

A pitfall remains. What if both Matthew and Luke omitted all the intercalations since they disliked that device? We would not have an argument for dependence but this would not be an argument for independence. The genetic relationship argument does not work equally for positive or negative instances. Evidence can prove a person guilty but a lack of it does not mean they are innocent. To muddy the waters even more we turn to our final issue:

4. Indirect Literary Dependence

A more complicated view is indirect dependence. For example, what if the Gospel of Thomas was not written with any canonical texts in front of it but was very familiar with this canonical material through other sources dependent upon it, oral preaching. As Meier put it, the canonical gospels, “inevitably . . . “contaminated” and modified the oral tradition that existed before and alongside themselves.” Of utmost importance is dating and popularity here. If Thomas dates to 140 A.D. and direct literary dependenc is ruled out, indirect dependence would be more likely as the popularity of the canonical Gospels was growing (esp. Matthew). But if Thomas dates to 120 or earlier then it would be much more difficult to imagine that all four canonical Gospels “inevitably” lead to the corruption and modification of Thomas Christianity at a large enough scale for Thomas to be called dependent. The period in between these dates would (presumably) present scholars with a more complex scenario. It must be stated that it is possible for floating oral sayings and independent traditions to be found in the second century but the later one goes the more likely dependence (direct or indirect) on the canonical Gospels becomes.


There are general pitfalls here. Similar order may simply indicate common knowledge of an event or for a sayings Gospel, a common theme or that both authors shared a common source (oral or written). Order is usually bolstered when in tandem with wording. The two-source theory is a prime example of this. The order and wording is so similar that written dependence (rather than an oral matrix) must be posited.

A prime example that utilizes these criteria deals with the Johannine Gospel. Was John dependent upon Mark and/or Luke and Matthew? Many would posit that the wording and order of John indicate independence. Others would argue for number four above (indirect literary dependence and so forth). It is not our goal to answer this dispute here.

One final element may be highlighted: common sense. One of the major problems with the Griesbach Hypothesis was stated by E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies: “The strongest arguments against the Griesbach hypothesis are general, not technical. Why would anyone write a shorter version of Matthew and Luke, carefully combining them, and leaving out so much-such as the Lord’s prayer and the beautides-while gaining nothing except perhaps room for such trivial additions as the duplicate phrases and minor details (‘carried by the four’ and the like)? Further, if someone had undertaken this task, why would the church have preserved the gospel at all?"

For a relevant example that will be discussed again below in the Gospel of Thomas we can turn to saying 47. If Thomas was dependent upon either canonical Gospel (Matt. or Lk.) why would the author omit the God and mammon logion when it coheres with the attitude expressed elsewhere against commercial activity (see saying 63, 64 and 110 of GThom.)?


[[[[[[[[[thats the end of the section]]]]]

Some works are even more difficult given their fluid development. My next section focuses on Thomas and its development:

Fluidity of Thomas:

Our second aside necessary before addressing the dating and the question dependence of Thomas on the canonicals deals with textual corruption and fluidity. Sanders and Davies summarized the issue quite well when discussing the synoptic gospels, “We must allow for evolution of the gospel material at all stages of its transmission, including after it was shaped into a distinctive gospel." The Gospel of John was heavily redacted. I have written on the textual corruption of canonical Mark here. If Kloppenborg’s treatment of Q is accurate (see discussion below) we know that Q was heavily altered over the years. At any rate, if Gospel material is so fluid itself, how much more for a sayings gospel? If any more support is needed one should turn to the last 100 years of form-critical analysis of sayings material in early Christian writings.

The Gospel of Thomas was most likely a cumulative project which developed from generation to generation. New sayings could have been added simultaneously as the community progressed. Further, there are certainly very early materials in Thomas (e.g. #54) that may have come from the oral preaching of Jesus himself but that does not mean the 114 sayings of GThomas are an apostolic transcript! There is also material which appears to be pretty late (e.g. #7). Likewise, this does not justify a late dating of GThomas. What we are seeking is the dating of the torso of this collection. Given the fluid nature of this sayings document, it is more accurate to speak of the dating of a version of Thomas just as it is for the Gospel of John (e.g. pre-redacted John, redacted John and extant canonical John).

I would maintain that Thomas is substantially a first century text which does have a small number of late additions. We must allow for the intrusion of canonical sayings into Thomas at later stages of its development. Given the fluid nature, any argument, whether for early or late dating, or for dependence or independence, must be based upon numerous examples so that the argument is cumulative in the end. This is an important point so I stress it again. The argument must be cumulative.

This then means that the question of Thomas’ dating is very complex contra John Meier who argued that “only one of the passages I have listed would have to be Matthew’s own or reflect Matthew’s redaction to prove beyond a doubt that Thomas knows and uses Matthew’s gospel to compose his own.”12 To put the issue bluntly and generously, Meier has articulated nonsense. If only one redactional element were found out of all the 114 sayings in Thomas, Meier would hardly be justified in concluding that Thomas was dependent upon Matthew. Another possibility and a more likely one given only one or even a few instance would be that Thomas was corrupted at a later date by this canonical intrusion.

Meier’s naïve claim is hindered by the fluid nature of early Christian writings. As noted, the Gospel of Thomas like the canonical gospels was fluid and evolved over a long period of time. Only a few examples of canonical redactional material in Thomas will not make a very persuasive argument. If a few examples are not persuasive then Meier’s one definitely won’t be! The argument MUST be cumulative here.

Several reasons can be enumerated which show how independent material in Thomas can mistakenly be viewed as dependent upon the gospel’s redactional material. Stevan Davies wrote that “many scholars argue that there are so few hints of dependence by Thomas on Matthew’s or Luke’s or Mark’s Gospels that the hints that do exist cab be best explained by the fact that Christian scribes copied and translated Thomas throughout the centuries before it was hidden at Nag Hammadi. The history of New Testament manuscript tradition shows that the scribes who copied such manuscripts invariably made mistakes, made what they thought were improvements, copied what they remembered a saying to be rather than what a manuscript in front of them said it was and so forth. In other words, as scribes copied Thomas they did so in light of their own knowledge of the canonical gospels, and the same would be true for whoever it was who translated the Gospel of Thomas from Greek into Coptic. It is only reasonable to presume that their knowledge of the canonical gospels occasionally led them to change Thomas’s sayings as they copied them, and as time went on, sayings in copies of the Gospel of Thomas increasingly came to resemble their New Testament counterparts. Therefore, if on a few occasions Thomas’s sayings have words that accord with Matthew’s or Luke’s version of sayings rather than Mark’s version, this does not by any means prove that the Gospel of Thomas is dependent on Matthew’s or Luke’s Gospels, only that scribes in the chain of copying and translating were familiar with the canonical gospels.”13

We may then provide six reason for specific canonical material in Thomas. The first is a general one and encompasses the overall discussion. The final five are reprinted from an article written by Stevan Davies14:

1. We cannot exclude the intrusion of canonical material into Thomas at a later stage of the tradition

2. The scribes who copied Thomas almost certainly harmonized elements of Thomasine sayings with the canonical versions with which they were familiar. Such harmonization is a well known phenomenon in the text traditions of the synoptic gospels themselves especially in the Coptic textual tradition.

3. It is likely that whoever translated Thomas from Greek to Coptic did so in light of his knowledge of the sayings as they are found in the canonical gospels and so some harmonizing is to be expected in Coptic Thomas.

4. Coincidence and chance undoubtedly played a role. If, for example, Luke made a slight change in a saying that he found in Mark, Thomas may have coincidentally thought it proper to make the same change in a saying that he found in oral tradition, or oral tradition may have contained that supposed change.

5. Insofar as fragments of passages in Luke or Matthew are said to indicate redaction, this presupposes that we have at hand for comparison a perfect version of the same text of Mark that Matthew or Luke used. We do not. In some cases, what appears to be minor redactional changes made by Matthew or Luke may actually reflect the original text of Mark.

6. Redactional material in Luke or Matthew may derive from those author’s knowledge of material in Thomas. Gregory Riley (1995) has recently argued that Luke 12:14 and 5:39 indicates that some parts of Luke’s gospel “must post-date and be dependent upon sayings formed in Thomas Christianity”.

Stevan Davies wisely went on to note that “Such considerations would be without much merit if there were a considerable number of sayings in Thomas that certainly reflect the redactional tendencies of Mark or Matthew or Luke. There are few, if any, that do. Those arguing for the dependence of Thomas on the synoptics are therefore forced to concern themselves with a single word here, a phrase there. Such textual details are best accounted for by harmonization processes such as those enumerated above.”15

No more sneak peaks at my article till its done

Vinnie