Almost 60 Percent of Markan Jesus Sayings Appear in Thomas

[Secret Alias]

Davies, Stevan. "The Use of the Gospel of Thomas in the Gospel of Mark." Neotestamentica 30, no. 2 (1996): 307-34 (here p.310):

"Twenty one of the 36 Markan sayings have sayings have parallels in Thomas: 58%."

That would argue for Mark as a source for Thomas IMHO

[Ben C. Smith]

Davies, Stevan. "The Use of the Gospel of Thomas in the Gospel of Mark." Neotestamentica 30, no. 2 (1996): 307-34 (here p.310):

"Twenty one of the 36 Markan sayings have sayings have parallels in Thomas: 58%."

That would argue for Mark as a source for Thomas IMHO

Why not the other way around? Either Mark got most of his sayings from Thomas and the rest from elsewhere (or made them up) or Thomas copied most of Mark's sayings for his gospel. Why does one option make more sense than the other? What determines the directionality for you?

[perseusomega9]

Have you ever heard of spaghetti code?

[mlinssen]

Davies, Stevan. "The Use of the Gospel of Thomas in the Gospel of Mark." Neotestamentica 30, no. 2 (1996): 307-34 (here p.310):

"Twenty one of the 36 Markan sayings have sayings have parallels in Thomas: 58%."

That would argue for Mark as a source for Thomas IMHO

Stevan was very conservative there, I count 35 parallels between Thomas and Mark: https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_7 ... al_cousins

I'm unsure what he meant with "Markan sayings" though

I saw a bit of text here a little while ago, very apt:

As we see with the election in the United States, we live in a world where the truth exists independently in the minds of partisans and evidence helps 'suggest' rather than prove its veracity.

[andrewcriddle]

Davies, Stevan. "The Use of the Gospel of Thomas in the Gospel of Mark." Neotestamentica 30, no. 2 (1996): 307-34 (here p.310):

"Twenty one of the 36 Markan sayings have sayings have parallels in Thomas: 58%."

That would argue for Mark as a source for Thomas IMHO

Most of these sayings have parallels in the other synoptics. Since I accept Markan priority use of Matthew and/or Luke amounts to indirect use of Mark. However there is only limited evidence to support direct usage of Mark by Thomas.

Andrew Crddle

[Secret Alias]

Well said as usual Andrew

[mlinssen]

Most of these sayings have parallels in the other synoptics. Since I accept Markan priority use of Matthew and/or Luke amounts to indirect use of Mark. However there is only limited evidence to support direct usage of Mark by Thomas.

Andrew Crddle

Indeed, Thomas using Mark is a hard case to make. However, the reverse direction is interesting

https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_7 ... al_cousins

I invite you to judge for yourself how each of these 72 logia "comes into being" in the canonicals.
Mark has 35 logia, and 1 parable that isn't in Thomas.
Matthew and Luke double that score to 72, yet manage to find yet another 14 parables that are not in Thomas

Go by the evolution of the versions in the canonicals please, and you'll see how Matthew and Luke fix bits of Mark, add to it, etc. Mark hesitantly starts a copy in half of the cases, usually overexplains it all, then MatthewLuke comes by and cleans it up, with Luke usually going straight for the more verbatim copy of Thomas. And Matthew perfects it all linguistically, he had a very good eye for detail and was a bit of a nitpicker, very precise

There's more than that but this paper contains all versions in full, albeit based on sloppy translations. Comparing the Coptic to Koine would be best, but I haven't found the will to want to undertake that

[davidmartin]

Check this out ML
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-ab ... edFrom=PDF

If they're right we have a window into a lost non-canonical gospel used by the earlier church fathers
The question then becomes - does this draw on Thomas sayings or are they all outside Thomas?
(did the canonical gospels use this source for the non-Thomas sayings)

[John2]

Check this out ML
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-ab ... edFrom=PDF

If they're right we have a window into a lost non-canonical gospel used by the earlier church fathers
The question then becomes - does this draw on Thomas sayings or are they all outside Thomas?
(did the canonical gospels use this source for the non-Thomas sayings)

I see the source used in the Clementines as being one of the translations that were made of the original Hebrew Matthew (not to argue about that, just to offer my point of view), in this case one that was used by Ebionites who opposed Paul. In this scenario, the Hebrew Matthew would pre-date that source and be in line with the Nazarenes (who are said to have used it and accepted Paul).

[mlinssen]

Check this out ML
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-ab ... edFrom=PDF

If they're right we have a window into a lost non-canonical gospel used by the earlier church fathers
The question then becomes - does this draw on Thomas sayings or are they all outside Thomas?
(did the canonical gospels use this source for the non-Thomas sayings)

I see the source used in the Clementines as being one of the translations that were made of the original Hebrew Matthew (not to argue about that, just to offer my point of view), in this case one that was used by Ebionites who opposed Paul. In this scenario, the Hebrew Matthew would pre-date that source and be in line with the Nazarenes (who are said to have used it and accepted Paul).

I thought I answered earlier, can't find it though.
I'll look into it David, thanks!

John, your argument would in essence imply that Clementine draws entirely from the canonicals then?

With regards to the non Thomasine sayings: give the guys a break, everyone is always looking for texts so a to complete all sources to a given text, which leaves no room for creativity on the part of its writer. The canonicals made up a lot of stuff in their own, that's what writers do. If a good portion of your work essentially is plagiarism then the rest comes from your pen, that's how it works